JP ducks theism vs. a-theism debate. Petard hoisting afoot.

[Moneyguy1]

Any scientist or engineer knows there are things in nature that are poorly understood, but can still be used to make usable products. If science wwere still based upon only those things that were fully explainable, we would still be making stone implements and living in caves.

I prefer to think that one needs to keep an open mind and break the mold of absolutes. The world is no longer flat, the earth is no longer the center of the universe, yet people were condemned as heretics for one proclaiming those as false. To close one's mind to things one does not understand is to stifle creativity and imagination.

[MRM]

Also, I don't see any contradiction between religion and evolution. God uses evolution the way He uses gravity.

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Vocabulary as a weapon to subdue conversational "opponents", where every conversation has a "winner" and a "loser"; whether it begins as a debate or not. Vocabulary becomes more important than substance or original thought; it serves to fool the masses into thinking you might actually know what you are talking about.

You could be describing JP as much as PB. Aw, but JP does know what he's talking about. Right, I forgot that part.

PB is definitely polemic - no doubt, no doubt.

But then you can't be polemic without taking exception to the "common knowledge" of the group, now can you? You see an inflammatory "troll" (what a ridiculous concept in an OT forum - we should all agree and play nice and not raise or debate difficult subjects - what's the point?) - In this thread I see someone laying out some interesting points, which are being engaged by others.

[berettafan]

Originally posted by legion
And yet they are completely unable to see this about themselves.

I have a coworker in this camp. He simply can't comprehend how anyone could think he is wrong, much less that he is doing exactly what he criticizes. He freaks out if someone is wearing a cross necklace. (They are obviously "pushing their religion" on him.) These people seem to be singularly fixated on Christianity. He doesn't seem to mind the little Vishnu statues and whatnot some Indians have at their desk...

It sucks when every time you see a cross you are reminded of the fact that you are taking the expressway to hell. I'd be upset too.

[Jeff Higgins]

Originally posted by joeclarke
You could be describing JP as much as PB. Aw, but JP does know what he's talking about. Right, I forgot that part.

PB is definitely polemic - no doubt, no doubt.

But then you can't be polemic without taking exception to the "common knowledge" of the group, now can you? You see an inflammatory "troll" (what a ridiculous concept in an OT forum - we should all agree and play nice and not raise or debate difficult subjects - what's the point?) - In this thread I see someone laying out some interesting points, which are being engaged by others.

I agree; we all come here to some degree to engage one another in interesting debate; even difficult and oft times very emotional debate. This is truly pretty much a free-for-all; the thin-skinned and easily offended need not apply.

That said, there are some that engage in almost purely personal attack. When they go after the message, it's all too tempting for them to shoot the messenger. While I could care less if folks play nice or not when they are here, the constant underlying theme of personal attack from some of them gets old. It does nothing to further the argument. It has nothing to do with being polemic; one can certainly be polemic and civil at the same time. The good points you mention (and PB certainly has some) tend to get lost in the vitriolic nature of the attack.

It's one thing to get a bit strident in making a point or arguing a position; it's quite another to either infer, or state outright, that your antagonist has adopted their position through ignorance and ignorance alone. There are not many ignorant people on this BBS. To constantly tout one's own intellect while attacking that of others is simply a no-sale. It makes him come of as a cross between Vinzinni and 'enry 'iggins.

[unimog406]

my $.02
I am an agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I was born into a family utterly devoid of religion, and having grown up in the ensuing religious vacuum I feel safe in saying that the religious views are more a product of educated thought than of infused teachings. To me the concept of a religion that can be explained only by the supernatural, and that conforms more closely in spirit to a work of fiction than a theoretical explanation of the universe is highly unlikely. Let me refine that statement to avoid offense. I have read the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, even the Book of Mormon, in each case, the religion in question is elucidated in the book through means that are easily comprehensible in terms of standard storytelling. Despite this, the concept of the world being entirely as it seems, and utterly explicable by scientific means appears somewhat narrow-minded. Even if every observable phenomenon were at some point accounted for by science, there would still remain questions that science could not answer, Questions that can only be explained by a philosophy that some would call a religion. Questions that are difficult to put into words such as “why does anything exist?” Even more disturbing is the fact most major religions not only take power from the many and place it into the hands of the few [I.E. the pope] but also mandate an early indoctrination. How old were you when you were confirmed? Do you think that at that point in your life, you had thoughtfully debated your personal religious beliefs, separate from those of your family and community?
Let me now share with you my personal convictions on the topic. I find all major structured religions to be more easily explained by human desires and philosophies than by the supernatural, and thus to be sufficiently unlikely as to be easily dismissed. I also find the possibility of total atheism to be sufficiently narrow in its scope of the world to be equally easily dismissed. The happy medium is where I find myself now. I recognize that it is likely that there is, or at some point was, some force that cannot be explained by scientific means. This does not necessarily mean that it can be described as a ‘god’. Rather, I think of this as a principle. A unifying concept of all things. Perhaps it obeys the laws of physics, or perhaps it defines the laws of physics. It is a unifying truth that can account for physics, matter, gravity, and time. Trying to conform it to the ideals [and even the body] of a person as has been done in religion is foolish, but based on human philosophy, inevitable.
This being said, I recognize that thought without action is worthless. So knowing this [or dismissing it as so much fluff] how does one act on these beliefs? Prayer? Converting others? I have decided that the most important thing is for me to know what I believe, and, if asked, to be able to explain it. If others choose to pray to their gods, let them. If others choose to kill for their gods…. It should not be tolerated. Extremism of all forms [crusades….] should never be tolerated.
I am simply grateful that this discussion is taking place

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Theism vs. Atheism? Is there a debate?

I'm definitely in the theist camp, but it seems to me that both sides fervently believe something that they cannot prove. Sounds like they should be happy with their beliefs and quit trying to prove the other guy wrong...

+1 and furthermore...why does anyone really need to know IF either camp is correct?

[jluetjen]

[wludavid]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Theism vs. Atheism? Is there a debate?

I'm definitely in the theist camp, but it seems to me that both sides fervently believe something that they cannot prove. Sounds like they should be happy with their beliefs and quit trying to prove the other guy wrong...

-1

It's impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. Atheists generally don't try to prove that there's no god. They merely point out the lack of evidence. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. IMO, the burden of proof is on the theists.

[fastpat]

Geeez, what has Jack Palance done now? He died some time ago, didn't he give up his role as Mr. Hyde?

[nota]

I have no objection to belief in gods
or the fairytales they tell about all that

but when they want to make laws
that are based on those fairytales
then it is time to fight the godboys plans
as it never come to a good end
when the believers make laws based on their belief
tali-ban or rightwing nut christian
I fail to see the difference in their rule or rules

every group has invented gods or goddesses
but no two invent a common religion
the idea of one god is rare
and traveled from king tuts dad's cult in egypt
to the jews morphed into christian cults
and then made a short hop to arabs

every cult but king tuts dad's
split into many sub-cults
and some see tuts dad's cult may have split to
become the jews

point is if there was a god
there would be more religions
all over the world who had common beliefs
and would be from gods teaching
not mans spreding it

[unimog406]

bush ends his speech; "God bless america"
on our money "in God we trust"
in the courthouse
in the pledge of alliegance
teaching creationism over evolution
not allowing stem cell research

at this point politicians recognize that because the vast majority of americans are christian, ignoring [to some extent] seperation of church and state is likely to earn them some votes. what could be more important than getting elected? [regardless the moral cost]

I have no trouble with the church-going praying type, but those who foist their beliefs on me in the forms of law, and those who go to war in the name of their god should not be tolerated.

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by nota
I have no objection to belief in gods

...hey man, I like your style.

[joeclarke]

Originally posted by unimog406
If others choose to kill for their gods…. It should not be tolerated. Extremism of all forms [crusades….] should never be tolerated.
I am simply grateful that this discussion is taking place

...hey man, I like your substance.

[island911]

Originally posted by nota
I have no objection to belief in gods
or the fairytales they tell about all that
. . .

And I have no objection to athiests and their simplistic thinking.

What I find funny, are those athiests who pick only the simplistic thiests view, in an effort to elevate/support their (the athiests) position.

[wludavid]

I am a militant agnostic: I don't know, and you don't either!!

Actually, I would call myself an apatheist: I don't care if there is a god or not. There are better things to think about than debates which cannot, by their very nature, be resolved.

[island911]

Originally posted by wludavid
I don't know, and you don't either!!. .

But yet you think that you can know what some one else does/doesn't know? How would you have absolute certainty about what someone else knows? I think that what someone else knows cannot, by it's very nature, be resolved by what you know. . ..but who knows, I could be wrong.

[Moneyguy1]

Those who profess to know the unknowable are the most dangerous people on the face of the planet.

[Seahawk]

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
Those who profess to know the unknowable are the most dangerous people on the face of the planet.

Both sides.

[Moneyguy1]

Total agreement, Sea.....

People should re-read Gulliver's Travels to see the futility of endless arguments about the unknowable.