Athiesm and Theism
- Thread starter wesmorris
- Start date
I'd be interested to know how you came to the conclusion that atheism is unreasonable. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a religion. Personally, I am agnostic (I concede God may exist, but I highly doubt that he does), would this be considered unreasonable as well?
pardon. people use different (often incorrect) definitions for athiest and agnostic. what I gathered from double checking many times and well, generally being intelligent is the following:
Athiesm means that you DO NOT believe that god exists. It's not the disbelief in religion, it's "GOD DOES NOT EXIST". Look it up.
Agnostic basically means you don't think have a clue and doubt that anyone else does either.
You really should verify your understanding and look things up when you're trying to discount someone. It saves time and energy expenditure. i really shouldn't even respond but well, I like to help.
Please, let's spare the debate of the definitions for once... well, I can't stop you. Of course you'll do as you are compelled to.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Everything (including agnostic's) is unresonable because no one knows the truth for sure.
Yeah sure science can prove that a big bang happend but they dont know what happend before that.
Religion can prove that a God exists, it just take beliefs. But to know that that God is there for sure....
Agnostics can just say whatever they want to say.
Yeah sure science can prove that a big bang happend but they dont know what happend before that.
Religion can prove that a God exists, it just take beliefs. But to know that that God is there for sure....
Agnostics can just say whatever they want to say.
good point. turned around though: truth can only be established via assumptions.
but uh... we haven't gotten there yet? duh? it was science that led to discovery of the big bang. theism helped a lot with that one. I mean, it's a good thing they brutally murdered all those important scientists, that was a HUGE help towards discovering that the earth isn't the center of everything.
You mean assumptions.
Is impossible
\
So can theists. So can any human. Very insightful
It can mean both Wes. Either the disbelief in or denial of the existance of Gods. That's what the dictionary says anyway.
Not really correct. Agnostic means you believe there is not enough evidence to make an informed and rational decision either way. It's not that you don't have a clue, it's that the evidence needed to make a reasonable decision does not exist, and so logically no conclusion can be made.
Since you seem to like definitions so much, here's what I found:
ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Not knowing the truth is exactly what agnostics admit. They admit they do not know the truth, and that they will not make a decision until they have seen enough evidence to justify calling one thing truth. This is not unreasonable, in fact it's perfectly logical and reasonable.
It is explicitly impossible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As the laws of physics are believed to have formed at the Big Bang, we cannot apply our science to anything that came before it. Furthermore, it is possible to assume time was created at the Big Bang as well. If this is the case, there is no 'before' for science to probe. And even if both of these things turn out to be false, the Big Bang consisted of a singularity, a point at which all laws of physics break down (much like the center of a black hole). You cannot probe what lay before the Big Bang any more than you can probe what lies on the other side of a black hole.
To say religion can scientifically prove God's existance is ignorant. That is what most people are after, scientific proof, not someone's opinions, emotions, ideas or beliefs, all of which are completely relative.
Not really correct. Agnostic means you believe there is not enough evidence to make an informed and rational decision either way. It's not that you don't have a clue, it's that the evidence needed to make a reasonable decision does not exist, and so logically no conclusion can be made.
Since you seem to like definitions so much, here's what I found:
ag·nos·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
3. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.
Not knowing the truth is exactly what agnostics admit. They admit they do not know the truth, and that they will not make a decision until they have seen enough evidence to justify calling one thing truth. This is not unreasonable, in fact it's perfectly logical and reasonable.
It is explicitly impossible to know what happened before the Big Bang. As the laws of physics are believed to have formed at the Big Bang, we cannot apply our science to anything that came before it. Furthermore, it is possible to assume time was created at the Big Bang as well. If this is the case, there is no 'before' for science to probe. And even if both of these things turn out to be false, the Big Bang consisted of a singularity, a point at which all laws of physics break down (much like the center of a black hole). You cannot probe what lay before the Big Bang any more than you can probe what lies on the other side of a black hole.
To say religion can scientifically prove God's existance is ignorant. That is what most people are after, scientific proof, not someone's opinions, emotions, ideas or beliefs, all of which are completely relative.
Uh.. I realize that, just didn't want to go into definitions really, wanted to argue concepts. Did you notice that I used the term "basically" similar to "in a nutshell". I believe in brief terms my description was accurate enough... thanks for the benefit of the doubt though. You really cleared it up for me.
I specificaly asked to avoid this whole thing but was quite certain that someone would force the issue, I'd hoped it would have been in defense of theism though so I could falsely feel that my position was strengthened by the demonstrated anal retentivity of my critic. Thanks for ruining that lil glimmer of entertainment.
Oh and... Why the childish snottiness?
Are you messing with my head? That is basically (I'm such a smartass... pardon) what I'm arguing. Actually I'm taking it a step further and saying that it's the only reasonable belief of the three options. Pay attention.
The rest of your post was pretty reasonable. Nice.
No offense wes, but you are the one that is coming off as childish and snotty. You probably do not mean to, but that is how it appears to me at least.
Anyway on to the argument-
I argued in an earlier thread that religion can be reasonable. Now I will argue that atheism is reasonable.
Atheism is reasonable because it is logical.
Atheism is logical:
a. Evidence of some kind (direct or indirect) is required to necessitate belief.
b. I have not experienced evidence for the existance of god.
c. I do not believe in god.
OUCH.. okay then. well, thanks for pointing it out. Slide me some slack though. It's kind of annoying when you say to someone "Hey, look I'm basically saying this (and then you say a bunch of stuff), I don't want to have to argue over the definition of every word in a sentence until death please, just this once." and there is a reply "okay, since you like defintions so much, blah blah blah" don't you find that childish? I just found the whole thing annoying. Please pardon me.
[/B][/QUOTE]
yes but this logic doesn't allow for the possibility of god and is hence unreasonable. I should probably specify what I mean by believe and pardon if you aren't using this part of the definition of the word. By believe I mean "to accept as truth" hence to say "I do not believe in god" is equivalent to "god does not exist" which is the basis for atheism. Pardon if I was misleading.
Hey FC.
Okay, I read it again. I can kind of see what you're saying. Hehe.. I got up on some righteous indignation man. I lost control. Must.... get it... together... ARGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH.
Okay, so I was a little bitch. I'll try to stop it. I swear I'm a grown man and well, stupid righteous indignation. Hehe.. it's just so difficult being RIGHT all the time and no one else realizing it!
*giggle*
point taken.
Okay, I read it again. I can kind of see what you're saying. Hehe.. I got up on some righteous indignation man. I lost control. Must.... get it... together... ARGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHH.
Okay, so I was a little bitch. I'll try to stop it. I swear I'm a grown man and well, stupid righteous indignation. Hehe.. it's just so difficult being RIGHT all the time and no one else realizing it!
*giggle*
point taken.
lol, no problem wes. This is a religion debate forum, kindness and tact are really not expected (although it is nice). Though it takes quite a man to admit to these things and apologize for them (especially on the internet =D) And I do agree with you, atheism when defined as the complete rejection of God's existance is as unreasonable as theism. Also, would be worthy to note that reasonable and logical are two different things. I agree atheism is more logical than theism, but not more reasonable.
However I do still contend that agnosticism is both reasonable and logical.
Kudos to you though wes, for actually attempting to maintain a civil debate (which is more than some people on here can say for themselves... *looks to whatsup* )
However I do still contend that agnosticism is both reasonable and logical.
Kudos to you though wes, for actually attempting to maintain a civil debate (which is more than some people on here can say for themselves... *looks to whatsup*
)Tell me about it!
Your ability to say these two words puts you on a far higher maturity level than the large percentage of posters here...
Ok, now good points -
That is not how I see it...the POSSIBILITY of god is alive and well. Just as the possibility of monkeys flying out of my ass tomorrow morning cannot be absolutely discounted. Hmmm...but still I don't believe I'll be farting monkeys during breakfast.
Here is a concept I can't seem to get people here at sciforums to grasp:
Someone can rationally justify a belief without being certain that a belief is correct. How can someone have a belief (and yes accept as truth) something that is not certain? By:
a. Probability (or improbability)
b. Evidence (or lack thereof)
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Nope not yet.
When we do tell me.And I thank science for creating huge missles that can destroy the earth at any moment! Thank you science! I would also like to thank the people who made anthrax possible (Scientists). Oh and thank the church for helping the homeless. And giving money to the needy, and helping poor kids have a good christmas. Thank you science for proving why the shower curtain goes out when you take a hot shower.
I didnt say that religion can scientifically prove God. When did I say that? I said that by belief in God is enough for me to know that he's there.
Wes, you are coming off a bit snobish in your posts. If your joking please show us some sign of it, like a smiley.
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
I can give you proof. Come to church with me. Pray with me. Look up. Think. Scientific proof of God is impossible. It takes faith.
That is brilliant. Somewhat because that is what I believe as well, and somewhat because to me, there IS a right answer to a reasonable being.
Originally posted by Xelios
I cannot prove that at this time, but to lose faith in a possible solution certainly would lead to no solution, whereas to try could possibly yeild a solution no matter how unlikely (unless the liklihood is zero, I know) Again I would maintain that this applicatoin of faith is more reasonable than the application of faith towards the belief that god undenyably exists. Further, in is reasonable to assume that one will be entertained and enlightened by the debate.
That is very reasonable. Nicely put.
Originally posted by Xelios
Kudos to you though wes, for actually attempting to maintain a civil debate (which is more than some people on here can say for themselves... *looks to whatsup*
That is the most kindness I've seen displayed thus far on this site. It is further quite civil and insightful. Kudos to you for being a reasonable human. To me, there is nothing more worthy of respect.
I went to church for a good 5 years of my life growing up. I regularly went to Sunday school, got my Communion, got my Confirmation (which IMO is done at way to early an age) and went to church every Sunday. I was even an alter server boy for a while. In all that time, I did not experience, see or hear anything that made me believe in God. I finally got tired of pretending I believed, so I quit going. Since then, after posting on boards such as this one, debating with theists in the real world and reading a couple books on religion, I have come to the conclusion that God probably does not exist.
He still may exist, I may be wrong, but in the 18 years I've been alive I have not seen, heard, felt or experienced anything to cause me to believe he does.
Wes:
Isn't debate just so much nicer when people refrain from name calling, bickering and having an overall bad attitude? Personally, I develop much more respect for people such as yourself who are able to hold a debate without these things, and as a result am much more open to what they have to say. Oh, and a (late) welcome to SciForums =D
Oh what the hell, I'll piss everyone off.
I think that a reasonable theist wouldn't EVER post in a forum like this to refute the agnostic claims. I contend that a reasonable theist would claim that god is a being only understood through faith. In that case, how can one employ reason (and therefore require irrifutable proof for such an astounding claim) to reach the conlcusion of god?
Is this not the objective truth?
I think that a reasonable theist wouldn't EVER post in a forum like this to refute the agnostic claims. I contend that a reasonable theist would claim that god is a being only understood through faith. In that case, how can one employ reason (and therefore require irrifutable proof for such an astounding claim) to reach the conlcusion of god?
Is this not the objective truth?
CounslerCoffee
Registered Senior Member
Thats what Ive been saying. But atheists always tend to ask for proof first.
My story is very similar but it was a methodist church. After a while of debating with the adults there who really had no debating skills I thought, well... that's kind of dumb. I stopped.
I still hold that I cannot know. I've thought A LOT about it and reached the conclusion that the probability that the idea of "god" is beyond the capacity of humans to comprehend is way to high to ignore. If that is true, then really why bother? I don't have the equipment (and mind you, my equipment is very very good compared to the other humans, especially at verbal reasoning). The highest human cognition can as of now (to my understanding) only add to the exponential rate that questions arise given the attempt to answer some other question. The amount of unknown knowledge is unfathomably large and increasing in size. To have faith in god is to have faith in your capability to acknowledge god.
Do not theists therefore generally assert that god makes him self known to you? Isn't that circular? I've posted WAY too much today and this is heavy stuff, christ my brain is so fried. Maybe I'm a little lost here. Phew.
well, if you NEVER EVER give up the search, you'll find that there are all kinds of crazy possibilities that you can dream up. I shouldn't say this, but I think I have a few plausible schemes... at least, some very interesting explanations. if you don't find someone else's that is quite reasonable you'll surely come up with your own. That is the fruit of an earnest attempt given that you have the capacity and will to pursue it.
Yes, but I fear I dabble in the these black arts from time to time due to frustration. I try to admit it when I'm doing so though. How can you not admit it if you are earnestly attempting to discern truth? It wouldn't be condusive to truth if one did not.
Thank you SO much. That was such a warm and kind welcome. Man, I've been posting so MUCH the last few days that I just realized how much tension I've built up due to my perception of unreasonable stupidity, and my urgency to placate my "conceptual log jam" (sometimes, a brain can be a lot like cock) Regardless of my ramblings... I really appreciate it. I have not felt appreciated or respected much since I got here (thought it's only been a few days, I've been obsessed with debating) and well, I didn't care until I got a little (so to speak, I'm not gay) and then I realized how much I appreciate it. Thanks again.
Werd.