Theism vs. Atheism

[birch]

You do realize it is ridiculous (and even malicious) to talk about things that per definition are about all parties involved, such as love, respect, tolerance, while ignoring whether the other parties in fact consider themselves loved, respected or tolerated?

How can you tell someone you tolerate them, or respect them, if at the same time you are indifferent to whether this person indeed feels tolerated or respected by you??

wow! you are really good at coming up with crazy arguments.

well, we can't please everyone, can we? and we can't jump in the bodies and minds of everyone to make sure they don't feel disrespected, can we?

it's context, dear. context? when it's belief vs belief, it can be criticized with what you disagree with but you can't say what they believe that can't be proven or disproven doesn't exist. you can discuss what you like or dislike about it etc. for instance, if someone tells me they saw ghost, i can't state for a fact they haven't because it can't be proven or disproven. who am i to discredit someone's experience? the best i could do is speculate that it might be something else, stress 'might' or disagree but that's about it. it's intolerant when you assume a position of authority regarding someone else's beliefs with another belief but disagreement is not intolerance.

as far as your unfounded accusations and actually you come off as a bit malicious in this thread, maybe it would be helpful to you to realize that even theists don't all respect other's beliefs or views on many subjects(an understatement) or may even be disrespectful in some way to another because they believe what they believe to be a fact and everything else that is different from those facts is wrong or untrue.

This is a gross misjudgement of theist beliefs. The very core of Christianity, as an example, REQUIRES acknowledgement that you don't know. It requires that you believe without knowing. Those who stand up and say "they know" are exercising "bad religion" and you cannot judge a theology based on its worst figureheads. Well, you can - but it would be foolish.

Actually, it's not a misjudgement and it's certainly not a gross one. even if the bible states it's a faith in some text, most christians (active religion) state that god is a fact and indeed exists among other aspects of the religion. never have in all my years with dealing with christians has any christian, except for the few i can count on one hand, has admitted or even consider their beliefs as a faith. most seem to think it discredits their belief. they can't seem to differentiate a personal belief vs nonpersonal truths. for instance, that is why christians have churches and organizations. when conversing with those of same beliefs, it is validated as being true even beyond yourself to some extent or within a greater context but christians forget or don't recognize that when trying to convert others, it should be from a position of sharing that is a faith and what beliefs appeals, agrees with them or has been beneficial to them rather than from a base of their god is a fact and they are the messenger to save them. the latter is more common and it overrides the sense of rights and reality of the other.

that said, there are christians that are more tolerant or open-minded, especially today and there probably will be more tolerant christians or those who create new versions.

 

[SolusCado]

Actually, it's not a misjudgement and it's certainly not a gross one. even if the bible states it's a faith in some text, most christians (active religion) state that god is a fact and indeed exists among other aspects of the religion. never have in all my years with dealing with christians has any christian, except for the few i can count on one hand, has admitted or even consider their beliefs as a faith. most seem to think it discredits their belief. they can't seem to differentiate a personal belief vs nonpersonal truths. for instance, that is why christians have churches and organizations. when conversing with those of same beliefs, it is validated as being true even beyond yourself to some extent or within a greater context but christians forget or don't recognize that when trying to convert others, it should be from a position of sharing that is a faith and what beliefs appeals, agrees with them or has been beneficial to them rather than from a base of their god is a fact and they are the messenger to save them. the latter is more common and it overrides the sense of rights and reality of the other.

that said, there are christians that are more tolerant or open-minded, especially today and there probably will be more tolerant christians or those who create new versions.

I agree that the majority fall into the category you describe; however I maintain that one should judge a faith based on the tenets of that faith, not in how it is skewed by its followers. The same can be said regarding any subject at all. Take algebra for example: it represents a purity in identifying and solving unknown variables. It is perfect in what it does. Most students (the vast majority) fail to use Algebra perfectly. For the vast majority of tests at any given high school, you can find more people doing Algebra wrong than right. If I were to judge Algebra by its failure to correctly identify and solve unknown variables because so many people were "doing it wrong", I would be ... well, an idiot. Why then the double standard for theologies?

 

[birch]

I agree that the majority fall into the category you describe; however I maintain that one should judge a faith based on the tenets of that faith, not in how it is skewed by its followers. The same can be said regarding any subject at all. Take algebra for example: it represents a purity in identifying and solving unknown variables. It is perfect in what it does. Most students (the vast majority) fail to use Algebra perfectly. For the vast majority of tests at any given high school, you can find more people doing Algebra wrong than right. If I were to judge Algebra by its failure to correctly identify and solve unknown variables because so many people were "doing it wrong", I would be ... well, an idiot. Why then the double standard for theologies?

not the best analogy. this is because those who use algebra incorrectly are not doing it on purpose and if the error is pointed out, they will correct it. religion is a "creation" and those who have a premeditated desire to plug their beliefs by picking or interpreting texts of the bible to suit it. this is an active vehicle which takes on a life of it's own. the religion is the issue then.

besides, the bible can be read by anyone and most will agree and disagree with many parts of it just as any book that has ideas that are more assertions and interpretive.

 

[SolusCado]

not the best analogy. this is because those who use algebra incorrectly are not doing it on purpose and if the error is pointed out, they will correct it. religion is a "creation" and those who have a premeditated desire to plug their beliefs by picking or interpreting texts of the bible to suit it. this is an active vehicle which takes on a life of it's own. the religion is the issue then.

Again, those who do not correct their understandings of their faith represent those who are exercising it incorrectly, so you still cannot judge the faith. Continuing in the previous analogy, it would be like pointing out to a student that their work is wrong, but by not telling them the correct approach they continue to do it wrong. You can only judge the religion based on the religion itself. Anything else would be a misdirected attack.

 

[birch]

Again, those who do not correct their understandings of their faith represent those who are exercising it incorrectly, so you still cannot judge the faith.

well, it's because of the nature of human assertions such as the bible filled with so many different ideas and even ones that contradict that christians could accuse one another of exercising it incorrectly.

You can only judge the religion based on the religion itself. Anything else would be a misdirected attack.

you are right about this but one may disagree with the religion itself and the bible. just because there are some that do realize it's a faith doesn't mean that when they share their faith with others that are not christian, it will not be criticized or disagreed with just as christians criticize or disagree with the secular or other religions etc. what shouldn't be up to question is that everyone does have a right to believe whatever they choose.

i think many theists believe that their beliefs or even their faith god is a fact or even some people's assertion that god is a fact to be under attack. most people don't care what someone believes but when it's presented to others, it goes without saying that it could be criticized and disagreed with which could be perceived an attack. this applies to any idea or subject.

 

[SolusCado]

you are right about this but one may disagree with the religion itself and the bible. just because there are some that do realize it's a faith doesn't mean that when they share their faith with others that are not christian, it will not be criticized or disagreed with just as christians criticize or disagree with the secular or other religions etc. what shouldn't be up to question is that everyone does have a right to believe whatever they choose.

Agreed.

i think many theists believe that their beliefs or even their faith god is a fact or even some people's assertion that god is a fact to be under attack. most people don't care what someone believes but when it's presented to others, it goes without saying that it could be criticized and disagreed with which could be perceived an attack. this applies to any idea or subject.

True enough, which is why (bringing things back to my OP) it is that much more critical that conversations should be had focused on the subject rather than the people, to minimize the perception of an attack. Clearly, one cannot please all the people all the time, and some are certainly going to be more defensive than others - but if the ultimate goal is to have intelligent conversation, with reason triumphing over irrationality, then it would be best for all parties involved to be focused on addressing point without resorting to personal attacks and derisive comments.

 

[SolusCado]

Incidentally, does anyone know why Moose got banned?

 

[deicider]

Deicider... I'm not ever sure if your post is worth responding to, but... I'll give it a shot:

Worth of responding?
You believe in fairy tales,you DO realize that, right?
Ofc not.

This statement implies an absurdity to the idea of a God that is wholly unfounded. As objects that are part of this universe, your examples are bound to the logic and rules of this universe. The concept of God as a creator of our universe places such ideas squarely outside the realm of physical applicability. The fact remains that you not only CAN'T prove God doesn't exist, but you can't even provide one shred of evidence to that effect, so to dismiss the idea reflects a closed mind that frankly WOULD give rise to the kind of anger and intolerance I have been describing.

I can disprove god,enough that it seems nothing more than SantaExtremeEditionTM.
Thats why am an atheist and not a theist or agnostic.
The fact that you can't even grasp the concept of god being disproved only adds to your theistic parade.

Ha! I challenge you to find one post in all of my threads that shows I deny logic or science, or that I exert selective knowledge. For that matter, one example of my using a fallacy (much less fallacies upon fallacies). Your statement reflects a horrific generalization that again supports my prior statements, and represents a hatred that transcends logic itself - making any attempt on my part to change your mind (regarding tolerance and acceptance of others' beliefs - not any belief itself) a waste of my time.

Wanna know how you deny logic and science?
Simply by believing in god.

God - Science= contradiction.
If you dont understand this you just prove my point,the reason you're a theist.
If you understand but you dont agree with it then you're out of reality,which only proves why you're a theist.

You just need an imaginary daddy/insurance company to pet your head from the sky.
And still you havent learned living like a normal adult.
Theists are the living example of how far can a brain go to retain its psychological microworld of safety.

 

[SolusCado]

Worth of responding?
You believe in fairy tales,you DO realize that, right?
Ofc not.

I can disprove god,enough that it seems nothing more than SantaExtremeEditionTM.
Thats why am an atheist and not a theist or agnostic.
The fact that you can't even grasp the concept of god being disproved only adds to your theistic parade.

Wanna know how you deny logic and science?
Simply by believing in god.

God - Science= contradiction.
If you dont understand this you just prove my point,the reason you're a theist.
If you understand but you dont agree with it then you're out of reality,which only proves why you're a theist.

You just need an imaginary daddy/insurance company to pet your head from the sky.
And still you havent learned living like a normal adult.
Theists are the living example of how far can a brain go to retain its psychological microworld of safety.

Repeating your position while providing no additional information is a waste of everyone's time. Insults to an individual instead of addressing a topic is even more so. If you aren't going to contribute to the conversation, please stay out of it.

 

[deicider]

Repeating your position while providing no additional information is a waste of everyone's time. Insults to an individual instead of addressing a topic is even more so. If you aren't going to contribute to the conversation, please stay out of it.

Contribute as what?
You just wanna hear pretty things about getting along.

Your mind is as closed as it gets.
Not all the information and proof in the world would ever change your mind(which applies almost to all theist adults).
Why someone tries to actually explain?
Everyone knows the drill,you will just negate everything with logical fallacies(optionally using the bible as source) and go on with your life,after you've wasted people's time.

You have the nerve to ask for "proof" while you're actually drowning in them?
What you need is logic ,not proofs.

You can give proofs and explanations on rats and bunnies but they will never understand how nuclear fission works.

Also you say that i repeat my position,the above explains why do i do that.
But you fail to see that "repeating position" is the whole point of any theist's argument,actually its the point of the whole religion/god theory.
You read a book and stop thinking beyond.
Science updates by the minute,you still believe what it was written a looong time ago by some people who heard voices.

 

[SolusCado]

Contribute as what?
You just wanna hear pretty things about getting along.

Your mind is as closed as it gets.
Not all the information and proof in the world would ever change your mind(which applies almost to all theist adults).
Why someone tries to actually explain?
Everyone knows the drill,you will just negate everything with logical fallacies(optionally using the bible as source) and go on with your life,after you've wasted people's time.

You have the nerve to ask for "proof" while you're actually drowning in them?
What you need is logic ,not proofs.

You can give proofs and explanations on rats and bunnies but they will never understand how nuclear fission works.

Also you say that i repeat my position,the above explains why do i do that.
But you fail to see that "repeating position" is the whole point of any theist's argument,actually its the point of the whole religion/god theory.
You read a book and stop thinking beyond.
Science updates by the minute,you still believe what it was written a looong time ago by some people who heard voices.

Your presumption to my beliefs, and what logic I do and do not accept, is a testament to your ... position. I would be happy to engage you with logic and science regarding any subject you care to bring up. But as it stands, your posts are an excellent example of what I noted in my OP. Thanks for making my point!

 

[deicider]

Your presumption to my beliefs, and what logic I do and do not accept, is a testament to your ... position. I would be happy to engage you with logic and science regarding any subject you care to bring up. But as it stands, your posts are an excellent example of what I noted in my OP. Thanks for making my point!

You would be happy,i completely agree that you would.
But thats how far a theist goes,not being logical but happy.


But thats ok,one quick thing:

How do you explain the fact that scientists created organic matter out of simple chemical ingredients(not organic)?.

 

[SolusCado]

You would be happy,i completely agree that you would.
But thats how far a theist goes,not being logical but happy.


But thats ok,one quick thing:

How do you explain the fact that scientists created organic matter out of simple chemical ingredients(not organic)?.

What is there to explain? They created organic matter. Same way organic matter came about on Earth millions, if not billions of years ago.

 

[deicider]

What is there to explain? They created organic matter. Same way organic matter came about on Earth millions, if not billions of years ago.

So you dont believe god pulled it out of his magic hat?

 

[SolusCado]

So you dont believe god pulled it out of his magic hat?

No. Furthermore, before you say it, the Bible doesn't say that He did. The book of Genesis makes much use of the phrase "God created" but it doesn't say how. There is no need to choose religion OR scientific knowledge and understanding. The Bible isn't even concerned with the how. It is concerned with what and why. Science tells us how and when.

 

[wynn]

I agree that the majority fall into the category you describe; however I maintain that one should judge a faith based on the tenets of that faith, not in how it is skewed by its followers.

The tenets of many faiths also state something to the effect of "People are fallible".

For example, a sinful Christian does not misrepresent or skew the Christian religious tradition, since that tradition, to begin with, states that Christians are sometimes sinful. He or she might not be the perfect emulation of Christ, though.

If I were to judge Algebra by its failure to correctly identify and solve unknown variables because so many people were "doing it wrong", I would be ... well, an idiot.
Why then the double standard for theologies?

It is not a double standard because theistic knowledge is not conceived of in an analogical manner as algebra, nor does algebra make claims that state to be all-encompassing, all-important.

I think part of the problem is that some atheists are ignorant of what the particular religious tenets are, and then they make extrapolations based on their limited knowledge.

Actually, I yet have to meet an atheist who would strike me as educated in religious matters.

 

[wynn]

True enough, which is why (bringing things back to my OP) it is that much more critical that conversations should be had focused on the subject rather than the people, to minimize the perception of an attack. Clearly, one cannot please all the people all the time, and some are certainly going to be more defensive than others - but if the ultimate goal is to have intelligent conversation, with reason triumphing over irrationality, then it would be best for all parties involved to be focused on addressing point without resorting to personal attacks and derisive comments.

"If the ultimate goal is to have intelligent conversation" -?

I think that just cowardly, sorry.

Harmony, world peace and such are much more useful goals, and they are also goals that will more easily inform the participants where, when, how, with whom to talk about things.

 

[SolusCado]

"If the ultimate goal is to have intelligent conversation" -?

I think that just cowardly, sorry.

Harmony, world peace and such are much more useful goals, and they are also goals that will more easily inform the participants where, when, how, with whom to talk about things.

I was speaking specifically in regards to the purpose of forums like this, which don't purport to serve a greater goal of bringing about harmony and world peace.

 

[birch]

I think part of the problem is that some atheists are ignorant of what the particular religious tenets are, and then they make extrapolations based on their limited knowledge.

this is quite funny.

you even said it yourself: religious tenets. believe it or not, some may not agree with the religious tenets. helloo?

as for texts of the bible, that is where the religion is "extrapolated" from and most of it is up to interpretation so anyone, including all and any christian can claim that another is practicing or misrepresenting god or the true christian tenets. if it wasn't so, then there wouldn't be so many different sects besides the various denominations now, would there? i just recently dealt with an issue regarding christians involved in universalist and other christians denouncing that as they must not be true christians. this is just the tip of the iceberg.

additionally, you are insinuating that the religious tenets or the bible is ethical or moral and that it's others misunderstanding of it that is a cause of criticism. even taking the bible as a source for religious tenets, it is filled with multitudes of assertions that many would consider immoral, ammoral or even downright evil. don't even try to pull the wool over our eyes with your dishonest tactics, it may work somewhere else but not here. comprende?

For example, a sinful Christian does not misrepresent or skew the Christian religious tradition, since that tradition, to begin with, states that Christians are sometimes sinful. He or she might not be the perfect emulation of Christ, though.

seriously, do you not realize context? i know what this argument is because i've heard it many times, it's a classic one in argument that comes up but it's misrepresentation and one that is deceptive. let me explain: the argument is not whether christians sin or not perfect or misrepresent a religion. that is more a sidepoint and a criticism of the salvation aspect which ensures a place in heaven no matter what they do. but others will go to hell just because they are not christian though a christian may have commited more grevious sins and caused more harm. as a matter of fact, the nonchristian could be a very good person that has benefited society greatly. you conveniently left this aspect and most popular (for obvious reasons) religious tenet out, as if it's unimportant. i find that pretty deceptive and dishonest when you are making a point where this would be essential info if one were honestly trying to present a true picture of what is going on.

besides, do you think that outside of other christians, that anyone's primary issue or concern is whether christians misrepresent or skew their beliefs or tradition? this is because outside of the world of christianity, to anyone else it is merely a belief or may not even agree with the beliefs for that matter. well, how amazing is that? for example, most christians believe that gay relationships are immoral and whether a christian is more intolerant doesn't necessarily make others view religion more favorably or with approval just because one can be consistent! the bible states that all witches should literally be put to death but just because a christian may take it on themselves to represent it with due diligence and actually kill a wiccan or whatever etc does not mean they are going to be applauded or admired for their convictions! the nazi's sincerely believed in what they did and lived up to it doesn't make others give them a thumbs up for it! whether a christian represents their faith better or worse than another has no relevance in gaining credibility of the foundations or tenets of their religious beliefs to those who do not share the same view or values.

you are missing the point as to what the real issue is.

 

[wynn]

Birch - I don't really know what to say, given your attitude ...
Do you think I am a Christian?