Although we here are accustomed to dealing separately with issues surrounding atheism and issues surrounding theism--and frequently the two camps get on each others' nerves--in the interest of a possible meeting of the minds and hearts, what do you perceive to be the blatantly obvious "errors of the atheistic way" and/or "errors of the theistic way" from your viewpoint? **************************************************** 10-28-06, 09:27 AM juanruiz
quote: "errors of the theistic way"
Belief in a deity (or deities). All the specific and varied doctrines of the theology are just more cards which build the house.
10-28-06, 11:45 AM newnickname An error of "the atheist way" (if there is such a thing) might be the idea that only what we can observe and comprehend exists. We evolved in particular circumstances, and our senses (even with technological aids) can only detect particular aspects of the universe, while our intelligence is also basically a side effect of the evolutionary pressure to survive and reproduce. It would be a strange coincidence if we had evolved with the abilities to notice and understand everything about the larger universe. I'm not sure if many atheists actually make this error, though.
The theists' error is to take this idea - that there is possibly (probably) Something Else Out There which we can't (yet) know about - and give it a human-like face, describing in minute detail how it wants us to wash, eat, procreate or whatever, and then start slaughtering other theists who disagree on such details.
10-28-06, 06:52 PM frankvan Blatantly obvious? I'm inclined to think that the most frequent error on the part of theists is absent among atheists. Atheists have never, to my knowledge, devoted time, money, or effort to converting others to atheism. Has anyone ever heard of atheist missionaries? I believe that atheism is an evolutionary process that occurs naturally to anyone capable of observing the world with unbiased scientific rigor. Recognizing that the overwhelming majority of people haave been seduced and misled by "threats of hell and hopes of paradise" in their formative years, atheists eschew dogmatic proselytizing. Perhaps their biggest error is a determination to remain aloof and therefore allow the theists free rein to multiply and prosper at the expense of the gullible.
10-30-06, 05:27 AM tsaeb Can we have a show of hands as to who here has been influenced by Richard Hawkins' bestseller, The God Delusion? Is he right on the money concerning what frankvan called "unbiased scientific rigor," if you are familiar with the book?
I am surprised at how calm this thread sounds so far.
10-30-06, 05:34 AM tsaeb
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: An error of "the atheist way" (if there is such a thing) might be the idea that only what we can observe and comprehend exists.
If it could be shown by other than scientific experiment that something which science deems unobservable (other than God Himself) is, in fact, possible to put on paper as visible, would this be sufficient to in any way prove that there is a God? Can a mere mortal accomplish such a thing outside of scientific experiment without the help of God?
10-30-06, 07:39 AM juanruiz
quote: Originally posted by tsaeb: Can we have a show of hands as to who here has been influenced by Richard Hawkins' bestseller, The God Delusion? Is he right on the money concerning what frankvan called "unbiased scientific rigor," if you are familiar with the book?
I am surprised at how calm this thread sounds so far.
Haven't read it. The calm may be due to the fact that only unbelievers have responded.
10-30-06, 09:42 AM newnickname
quote: ...other than scientific experiment...
Scientific experiments are simply careful observations, designed to eliminate human error and subjectivity as much as possible. As such, they are, in theory, repeatable by anyone; you're not allowed, "It works only for me, because I am special" or "Damn, it only works whenever everyone else leaves the room".
If you want to prove something to others, careful and repeatable observations along with logically sound argument are the way to go.
When you say 'other than scientific experiment' what could you mean? The only thing I can think of would be an individual's introspection, meditation or prayer which could "show" him or her, individually, that some Higher Power exists. While no scientist, or atheist, could deny the personal conviction arising out of such a subjective experience, it's not going to prove to others that there is a god.
Tsaeb, you know we're reluctant book-buyers. I'm waiting for the paperback. There's a long and hostile review of Dawkin's book in the latest issue of Harpers .
10-30-06, 04:27 PM VelvetVoice
quote: Originally posted by frankvan: I believe that atheism is an evolutionary process that occurs naturally to anyone capable of observing the world with unbiased scientific rigor.
Is your wife aware that you view her (a devoted Catholic, from what you say) and anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view as 'less evolved'? Just because you are older (80s, I think), doesn't make you smarter or more able to love. There is no scientific proof for love either, but it does exist. Doesn't it?
quote: Recognizing that the overwhelming majority of people haave been seduced and misled by "threats of hell and hopes of paradise" in their formative years, atheists eschew dogmatic proselytizing.
If you know for a fact that Hell does not exist, why do you complain when we say you are condemned to it?
quote: Perhaps their biggest error is a determination to remain aloof and therefore allow the theists free rein to multiply and prosper at the expense of the gullible.
KILL ALL THE THEISTS!
10-30-06, 04:31 PM VelvetVoice
quote: Originally posted by newnickname: ...and then start slaughtering other theists who disagree on such details.
This is the only part of your post I must disagree with. While I know this is what you think, and I know that history seems to prove this statement, this is not what God requires.
10-30-06, 05:46 PM juanruiz
quote: this is not what God requires.
Whether god requires it or not is not the point. It's what people believe god requires that is the problem. So you can have pacifists on one side, and bellicose maniacs on the other. The latter cause destruction due to their belief.
10-31-06, 05:51 AM tsaeb VV: My bad thinking has surpassed yours, because I am wondering how these unbelievers who are wed to believers can stand their believing spouses. However, what I find absolutely hilarious is my thought that any one of them, if their lives depended on it, would readily go under the knife of a believing surgeon without giving one hoot about the rationality, sanity, reality, or scientific rigor of such a surgeon! Nevertheless, unbelievers do seem to have their strange way of expressing their spiritual hunger and thirst. How would they react if their spiritual hunger and thirst were finally satisfied? Meanwhile, they would have us believe that they have no such thing, because they have no spirits. Maybe they have spirits of a different kind. Big Grin
newnickname: Reluctant, nay. Cheap, yay. It is a paperback quite reasonably priced so that to save face, you will have to revert to your scientific objection. That review has the word "hysterical" associated with Richard Dawkins, and it is quite funny to imagine a hysterical scientist, who claims to have a market on rationality. Anyway, you know that I bought his book, because the thought of countering only one of his arguments with something delectably indisputable could make me a rich woman. Anyway, books--whether pro or anti religion--are a tax deduction for me. Oops, I think that I finally told you what I am up to.
10-31-06, 09:40 AM frankvan
quote:
Originally posted by VelvetVoice:
quote:
Originally posted by frankvan: I believe that atheism is an evolutionary process that occurs naturally to anyone capable of observing the world with unbiased scientific rigor.
Is your wife aware that you view her (a devoted Catholic, from what you say) and anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view as 'less evolved'? Just because you are older (80s, I think), doesn't make you smarter or more able to love. There is no scientific proof for love either, but it does exist. Doesn't it?
You appear not to understand the word 'evolve'. I'm not using it in the 'origin of the species' sense; all it means here is that we gradually acquire our faith over a lifetime of varied experiences. Faith to me means belief without evidence, to some it means whatever they're most comfortable with. Contrary to what you say, I think that because I'm older I certainly hope I'm smarter and more able to love. Do you think you remain stuck where you are today?? I never asked for scientific proof of anything, but I do require something more than hearsay evidence of centuries old anecdotes.
quote:
Recognizing that the overwhelming majority of people haave been seduced and misled by "threats of hell and hopes of paradise" in their formative years, atheists eschew dogmatic proselytizing.
If you know for a fact that Hell does not exist, why do you complain when we say you are condemned to it?
Where did you get that from? I've never claimed to 'know for a fact' much of anything. That's for you and other theists to "know' by osmosis or however you do those things. I merely doubt or question the existence of things that theists claim exist. You make the claim. I express doubt. If you want to convince me, produce some evidence. If your 'evidence' is something only you can see, I'm obliged to ask, "Who else can see it". I despair of trying to prove a negative, so I don't try. The burden of proof is on the party making the claim. IMHO.
quote:
Perhaps their biggest error is a determination to remain aloof and therefore allow the theists free rein to multiply and prosper at the expense of the gullible.
KILL ALL THE THEISTS!
Now you're getting hysterical. I'm finding fault with atheists tendency to wash their hands of trying to change the minds of theists. Not to kill them! You, Tsaeb, my wife, and millions of others believe in something I do not believe. I think you are all mistaken, but that's not my concern. You have the right to be wrong even though I think there's a price you pay for lives of decisions based on error.
11-01-06, 09:24 AM VelvetVoice Frank: No harm, no foul. I get the gist of your meaning, but I don't think most people are smarter as they get older. I'm as dumb as I used to be, but I have more experience and a more extensive vocabulary to cover it up. Apparently, so do you. I really like your words in the EODB game.
As far as the hellfire and brimstone, most unbelievers take exception to the fact that we say they are condemned to hell. I guess it isn't you specifically. Many want prayer removed from schools and 'In God We Trust' removed from currency and 'under God' from the pledge. Why do you care if there is no such thing as God?
My statement 'kill all the theists' was an attempt to steal from Shakespeare. He said 'kill all the lawyers'. I'm surprised you missed it, it was my attempt at sarcasm.
Frank says: I think there's a price you pay for lives of decisions based on error.
Could you be more specific about this?
11-01-06, 09:27 AM VelvetVoice
quote: Originally posted by juanruiz: Whether god requires it or not is not the point. It's what people believe god requires that is the problem. So you can have pacifists on one side, and bellicose maniacs on the other. The latter cause destruction due to their belief.
I can't help that there are crazy people on the street. Aren't there crazy atheists too? I've never done any research, but I bet there are as many atheists who are murderers, thieves, etc. Believing in God doesn't necessarily make you crazy.
11-01-06, 09:31 AM juanruiz I'm not sure "smarter" is the accurate term; perhaps more savvy about the world. Although some older people never do get to that point. As for hell, I don't understand the glee with which believers do the condemning. First, it's presumptous; I believe Christianity teaches that only god knows for sure. Second, do they actually believe it's going to have an effect on someone who doesn't buy into the system?
11-01-06, 09:33 AM juanruiz
quote: I've never done any research, but I bet there are as many atheists who are murderers, thieves, etc. Believing in God doesn't necessarily make you crazy.
Someone a while back, maybe Gar, posted a statistic on the number of convicts who claim to be Christian. They were a vast majority of the prison system.
11-01-06, 09:48 AM newnickname "Craziness" can affect anyone, and personal life histories could lead any of us to crime, maybe.
It seems, however, that to get rational, sane people to commit outrageous atrocities, either you need to convince them that it's self-defence, or that it's justified through some form of religion or patriotism/tribalism.
"Atheism" just doesn't seem to be that powerful or emotive an idea - it's on a more human and sensible scale. You can't kill for it, and feel it's somehow justified in the larger scheme of things, beyond the mundane humane experience. Atheism would tell us that the mundane human experience is all we can be (reasonably) sure of.
Has there ever been an instance of troops being sent off to war, people working themselves up to some kind of pogrom, or priests about to sacrifice or perform an auto da fe with "Our God(s) probably aren't behind us on this, if they exist, and those others are just people like ourselves..."?
11-01-06, 10:08 AM juanruiz "Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can"
I always had a few problems with this, coming from a guy who left an estate of over a half-billion dollars and lived in one of the most exclusive buildings in NYC. I know, I know: Blame Yoko.
11-02-06, 07:58 AM Elexina Blame Canada.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,
AnswerPool.com 
