Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Maybe theism and atheism aren't different

kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 1:46:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?

Nice try, but that doesn't address the issue of sin, and holiness, and justice, and righteousness, and redemption, and a host of other things.

If by "get along" you mean "agree", then NO, we can't "get along."
There is truth and there is error.

And there is sin leading unto death, and there is righteousness leading unto life.
And Christ himself is that righteousness, so you must have Christ.

Without faith in Christ, you will perish in your sins and go to everlasting torment.

"...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."(Acts 4:12)
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 4:37:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

Okay, I will look at your points.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

There are three types of theists (that I have found so far).
1) Those that draw the conclusion there is a god, then look for evidence of it.
2) Those that have been indoctrinated into their religion and have never bothered to really question it.
3) Those that have anecdotal evidence.

I fall under #3

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

There are two types of atheists that I have seen so far:
1) Those that do not believe in god and choose not to even listen to theists
2) Those that do not care about anecdotal evidence, that rely on objective evidence (which there is none for a god)

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?

The processes are not really the same unless you compare #1 from both sides, but I have found that a majority of atheists fall under #2.

They are pretty different, but I do think that people should get along. I do think, however, that theism and government need to remain separate. If you want people to get along, then a secular government is a must. Of course, that is not happening right now. Most of the right-wing push aspects of their religious views (marriage between one man and one woman is just one example).
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 5:15:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?

The difference is that one side (theism) is making claims and the other side (atheism) is not. The only thing atheism does is reject theistic claims as being unsupported. those are two very different things.

The rest of your post compares theists to atheists. That is very different from comparing theism to atheism.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 5:26:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?

I'm afraid I have to call this one facetiously false. Atheists don't adhere to faith to hold their belief, theists do. Atheists tend to side with reason, logic and objective evidence, while theists seem to abhor reason, and don't mind the illogical, irrational and contradictive claims in their doctrine, and argue from positions of the purely illogical.

Theist even demand objective evidence of non-existence (but only when it comes to God), which in itself, is a complete contradiction. Objective evidence only exists for things which exist. A lack of objective evidence for existence, is the indicator for non-existence.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 5:15:12 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?

The difference is that one side (theism) is making claims and the other side (atheism) is not. The only thing atheism does is reject theistic claims as being unsupported. those are two very different things.

Hear me out! Theists adhere to faith for a number of reasons. For example, maybe I had a feeling that made me believe in a Divintiy, maybe a good sermon, or maybe it helped me through a hard time. Atheists may choose to reject the existence of a Divinity for similar experience (saw a lecture, was hurt by theists, didn't encounter divine experiences, can't reconcile a suffering world with a Divinity). Theists and atheists are working from the same set of facts--they both hold their experiences in the highest regard. They simply have had different experiences, as have we all!

The rest of your post compares theists to atheists. That is very different from comparing theism to atheism.

You're right; point taken.
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:44:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 1:46:04 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/2/2014 12:22:13 PM, kbub wrote:
Maybe theism and atheism aren't different.

The access that theists have to God is their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources. They thus define their worldview from the facets.

Atheists also rely on their experiences, feelings, body, social constructs, logic, and trusted sources to define their worldview.

Atheists and theists use the same processes and the same data to make claims about the world. Their processes are the same; only their conclusions are different. With that in mind, are they so very different? Can't we all get along?

Nice try, but that doesn't address the issue of sin, and holiness, and justice, and righteousness, and redemption, and a host of other things.


Maybe in a way it does. There are certain reasons for holding that sin and redemption are important. The same type of things are those that atheists hold to be important factors. Thus, both sides are working as best they can from their given experiences. Both are working toward a truth in similar ways.

If by "get along" you mean "agree", then NO, we can't "get along."
There is truth and there is error.

Absolutely! But I want to point out that both are working to find truth in the same way.

And there is sin leading unto death, and there is righteousness leading unto life.
And Christ himself is that righteousness, so you must have Christ.

Without faith in Christ, you will perish in your sins and go to everlasting torment.

"...for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."(Acts 4:12)

Right! I see you have faith in God. You probably also have reasons or experiences that led you to this trust in Jesus. Thus, your experiences/instinct/culture are your primary mode of knowledge. The same is true for the atheist: the only difference is that the atheist found a different conclusion. The atheist and the theist have then a place to meet: they both ultimately use the same process of acquiring knowledge, but with different content.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 8:49:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are certain fundamental differences that hold back groups with such different worldviews from getting along. To a certain extent, I think it depends on what those differences are. There are some rabid theists, who spout what's quite literally nonsense. There are some rabid atheists, who do likewise. There's also relatively reasonable folks from both camps, as well--and it would be better if we all kept in mind that a difference of opinion does not necessarily mean a fundamental difference in worldview.

A problem is that, for the most part, it's vocal contingents which give the impression to "outsiders" as to what the group is, while "insiders" have their experience of reasonableness--thus, when the "outsiders" paint with a broad brush all of the group, the "insiders" object but, I think, also to a certain extent minimize the vocal but ridiculous contingent. who they also have a "soft spot" for for being part of their "in group".

It would be nice if we all could get along. But considering that the starting position is that of fundamental disagreement, any attempt to do so is already hobbled. Which doesn't mean it can't happen, but that it's starting from a handicap.

Further, I think sometimes even "reasonable" folks don't quite get some major problems with their worldview that make people respond to them negatively. A classic example, but one not intended to fault any one side more than the other, is with the issue of homosexuality. Those who think it's immoral have failed to give any reasonable grounds outside of religion for it to be such--and they have accepted as a premise that if it comes from religion, it's true. But to those that don't accept it, it's just as evil, if not more so, to advocate for the stoning, or punishment, or hellboundedness, of homosexuals. A disagreement on the nature of evil, itself, is unlikely to be able to be reasonably left as a "difference of opinion", because one of the most important things to people usually is the nature of good and evil--and evil is repudiated.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
kbub
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 9:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 8:49:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
There are certain fundamental differences that hold back groups with such different worldviews from getting along. To a certain extent, I think it depends on what those differences are. There are some rabid theists, who spout what's quite literally nonsense. There are some rabid atheists, who do likewise. There's also relatively reasonable folks from both camps, as well--and it would be better if we all kept in mind that a difference of opinion does not necessarily mean a fundamental difference in worldview.

A problem is that, for the most part, it's vocal contingents which give the impression to "outsiders" as to what the group is, while "insiders" have their experience of reasonableness--thus, when the "outsiders" paint with a broad brush all of the group, the "insiders" object but, I think, also to a certain extent minimize the vocal but ridiculous contingent. who they also have a "soft spot" for for being part of their "in group".

It would be nice if we all could get along. But considering that the starting position is that of fundamental disagreement, any attempt to do so is already hobbled. Which doesn't mean it can't happen, but that it's starting from a handicap.

Further, I think sometimes even "reasonable" folks don't quite get some major problems with their worldview that make people respond to them negatively. A classic example, but one not intended to fault any one side more than the other, is with the issue of homosexuality. Those who think it's immoral have failed to give any reasonable grounds outside of religion for it to be such--and they have accepted as a premise that if it comes from religion, it's true. But to those that don't accept it, it's just as evil, if not more so, to advocate for the stoning, or punishment, or hellboundedness, of homosexuals. A disagreement on the nature of evil, itself, is unlikely to be able to be reasonably left as a "difference of opinion", because one of the most important things to people usually is the nature of good and evil--and evil is repudiated.

You make a lot of great points. I don't disagree with you.

Now, you pointed out that much of the differences in the practice of some theists and some atheists is that there seems to be different starting points--some would hold to a particular doctrine, and analyze the world from that starting point. (They may even, for example, say that homosexuality is wrong when they wouldn't have done so without adhering to that doctrine.) However, the doctrine itself can't be the ultimate starting point. People believe things due to many causes, but not for no cause at all. Something drew people to their beliefs, theist or otherwise. Thus, the starting point is never actually the bible: instead, it is the experiences that lead one to accept or reject the bible. If people remembered their starting point, they might get along better. They may also remember to justify what they do from that point. Instead of saying that the bible is true a priori and therefore x, one Gould remember that one trusts the bible for a number of reasons/experiences. Those reasons/experiences are always (though they may not realize it) are evaluated against other experiences/reasons. The starting point, I believe, is actually more or less the same for all theists/atheists.

Oh, and when I say atheist, I really mean non-theist. Just caught that.
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 9:33:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 9:03:20 PM, kbub wrote:
At 8/2/2014 8:49:25 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
There are certain fundamental differences that hold back groups with such different worldviews from getting along. To a certain extent, I think it depends on what those differences are. There are some rabid theists, who spout what's quite literally nonsense. There are some rabid atheists, who do likewise. There's also relatively reasonable folks from both camps, as well--and it would be better if we all kept in mind that a difference of opinion does not necessarily mean a fundamental difference in worldview.

A problem is that, for the most part, it's vocal contingents which give the impression to "outsiders" as to what the group is, while "insiders" have their experience of reasonableness--thus, when the "outsiders" paint with a broad brush all of the group, the "insiders" object but, I think, also to a certain extent minimize the vocal but ridiculous contingent. who they also have a "soft spot" for for being part of their "in group".

It would be nice if we all could get along. But considering that the starting position is that of fundamental disagreement, any attempt to do so is already hobbled. Which doesn't mean it can't happen, but that it's starting from a handicap.

Further, I think sometimes even "reasonable" folks don't quite get some major problems with their worldview that make people respond to them negatively. A classic example, but one not intended to fault any one side more than the other, is with the issue of homosexuality. Those who think it's immoral have failed to give any reasonable grounds outside of religion for it to be such--and they have accepted as a premise that if it comes from religion, it's true. But to those that don't accept it, it's just as evil, if not more so, to advocate for the stoning, or punishment, or hellboundedness, of homosexuals. A disagreement on the nature of evil, itself, is unlikely to be able to be reasonably left as a "difference of opinion", because one of the most important things to people usually is the nature of good and evil--and evil is repudiated.

You make a lot of great points. I don't disagree with you.

Now, you pointed out that much of the differences in the practice of some theists and some atheists is that there seems to be different starting points--some would hold to a particular doctrine, and analyze the world from that starting point. (They may even, for example, say that homosexuality is wrong when they wouldn't have done so without adhering to that doctrine.) However, the doctrine itself can't be the ultimate starting point. People believe things due to many causes, but not for no cause at all. Something drew people to their beliefs, theist or otherwise. Thus, the starting point is never actually the bible: instead, it is the experiences that lead one to accept or reject the bible. If people remembered their starting point, they might get along better. They may also remember to justify what they do from that point. Instead of saying that the bible is true a priori and therefore x, one Gould remember that one trusts the bible for a number of reasons/experiences. Those reasons/experiences are always (though they may not realize it) are evaluated against other experiences/reasons. The starting point, I believe, is actually more or less the same for all theists/atheists.

Oh, and when I say atheist, I really mean non-theist. Just caught that.

Listen,
Anybody who's ever read the Bible knows that it's as EXCLUSIVE AS CAN BE.
It's "CHRIST or HELL."
It's not: "Do what thou wilt."

It's a noble desire on your part to want to reconcile all things, but it's IMPOSSIBLE, and it's WRONG.
You CAN'T DO IT.

The fact is, this world was CREATED BY and FOR CHRIST.
And he RULES this whole UNIVERSE.
And EVERYONE will FACE HIM in the JUDGMENT.

And every knee WILL BOW, and every tongue WILL CONFESS that He's LORD, to the glory of the Father.

And those who were redeemed will spend eternity in Heaven, and the rest will spend eternity in Hell.

There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.
You're either WITH CHRIST or you're AGAINST HIM.
And if you're WITH him, he's your GOD and your SAVIOR.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2014 10:21:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/2/2014 9:03:20 PM, kbub wrote:

You make a lot of great points. I don't disagree with you.

Now, you pointed out that much of the differences in the practice of some theists and some atheists is that there seems to be different starting points--some would hold to a particular doctrine, and analyze the world from that starting point. (They may even, for example, say that homosexuality is wrong when they wouldn't have done so without adhering to that doctrine.) However, the doctrine itself can't be the ultimate starting point. People believe things due to many causes, but not for no cause at all. Something drew people to their beliefs, theist or otherwise. Thus, the starting point is never actually the bible: instead, it is the experiences that lead one to accept or reject the bible. If people remembered their starting point, they might get along better. They may also remember to justify what they do from that point. Instead of saying that the bible is true a priori and therefore x, one Gould remember that one trusts the bible for a number of reasons/experiences. Those reasons/experiences are always (though they may not realize it) are evaluated against other experiences/reasons. The starting point, I believe, is actually more or less the same for all theists/atheists.

I disagree, though--because the starting point, in the way you're meaning it can still be invalid. If your starting point is "that's how I was raised", that's not a rational justification. Of course, neither is "I had a bad experience" a rational justification for "therefore God does not exist".

The question is always whether the reasoning is valid. Sometimes, a difference of opinion is reasonable--but other times, the argument is just garbage. When two people agree on the ultimate point, though, it's easier to overlook or turn a blind eye to garbage reasoning--while when the reasoning comes from someone in the opposite camp, it becomes glaring.

It would be better, I think, if we all started off with an assumption that we're all being reasonable, until such time as it's demonstrated to the contrary. Of course, there's a degree of fatigue that settles in, which I think is part of why sometime people start being d***s by default. I know I try to stay away from that, because I don't think it's productive.

Oh, and when I say atheist, I really mean non-theist. Just caught that.

Lol, I like to hope that your intention was clear to e'rybody.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!