Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Theist =/= Creationist

Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.
To believe is to know nothing.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.
To believe is to know nothing.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:32:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

I agree, some theists do not cite evidence as basis for their beliefs, but it is unfair for you to say that there are no foundations or probability. Besides, many theists DO base their beliefs on evidence as well as faith, such as myself.

Their foundation is their belief in God; which is to say that they believe in God and base their worldview around it. To say that theism has no foundation is akin to saying it just popped up out of thin air. I may be misrepresenting your point, if I am please correct me.

I would also argue that theism is more probable than atheism, but I'm not sure if you're willing to get into a full-scale existence of God debate right now.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:43:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:32:48 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

I agree, some theists do not cite evidence as basis for their beliefs, but it is unfair for you to say that there are no foundations or probability. Besides, many theists DO base their beliefs on evidence as well as faith, such as myself.


I'd start by asking you to clarify the standards you apply to your evidence. I'm yet to come across any myself but I'd be interested to read your reply.

Their foundation is their belief in God; which is to say that they believe in God and base their worldview around it. To say that theism has no foundation is akin to saying it just popped up out of thin air. I may be misrepresenting your point, if I am please correct me.


It did pop out of thin air when the bible was written. When I say foundations, I mean facts.

I would also argue that theism is more probable than atheism, but I'm not sure if you're willing to get into a full-scale existence of God debate right now.

Yea, you guessed right.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse? The scientific community has one answer for that... they don't know what happened before the big bang. That's the beauty of science. It's a mystery and I find that fascinating.
To believe is to know nothing.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:46:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Irrelevant. One could concede those are both unlikely and nothing would change.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:50:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I agree, although I believe theists are a bit unrational on some other issues, since the very belief on something as a God, feels kind of unrational to me and probably to most atheists.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
To believe is to know nothing.
Philocat
Posts: 728
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:01:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:43:45 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:32:48 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

I agree, some theists do not cite evidence as basis for their beliefs, but it is unfair for you to say that there are no foundations or probability. Besides, many theists DO base their beliefs on evidence as well as faith, such as myself.


I'd start by asking you to clarify the standards you apply to your evidence. I'm yet to come across any myself but I'd be interested to read your reply.

May I ask what you mean by 'standards'?


Their foundation is their belief in God; which is to say that they believe in God and base their worldview around it. To say that theism has no foundation is akin to saying it just popped up out of thin air. I may be misrepresenting your point, if I am please correct me.


It did pop out of thin air when the bible was written. When I say foundations, I mean facts:

Well, it's based on a few observations, that can be used to suggest that God exists:

1. Apparent design in the universe
2. Seemingly veridical religious experiences
3. Historical reporting of miracles
4. The principle of causation and contingency

Obviously these can be explained away naturalistically, but they can still be used as foundations for arguing for the existence of God.


I would also argue that theism is more probable than atheism, but I'm not sure if you're willing to get into a full-scale existence of God debate right now.

Yea, you guessed right.

At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse? The scientific community has one answer for that... they don't know what happened before the big bang. That's the beauty of science. It's a mystery and I find that fascinating.

That's odd, because when theists say something along the lines of 'God works in mysterious ways' or they appeal to mystery, they are derided as being rationally stubborn.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 2:50:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I agree, although I believe theists are a bit unrational on some other issues, since the very belief on something as a God, feels kind of unrational to me and probably to most atheists.

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:08:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:01:48 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:43:45 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:32:48 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

I agree, some theists do not cite evidence as basis for their beliefs, but it is unfair for you to say that there are no foundations or probability. Besides, many theists DO base their beliefs on evidence as well as faith, such as myself.


I'd start by asking you to clarify the standards you apply to your evidence. I'm yet to come across any myself but I'd be interested to read your reply.

May I ask what you mean by 'standards'?


Their foundation is their belief in God; which is to say that they believe in God and base their worldview around it. To say that theism has no foundation is akin to saying it just popped up out of thin air. I may be misrepresenting your point, if I am please correct me.


It did pop out of thin air when the bible was written. When I say foundations, I mean facts:

Well, it's based on a few observations, that can be used to suggest that God exists:

1. Apparent design in the universe
2. Seemingly veridical religious experiences
3. Historical reporting of miracles
4. The principle of causation and contingency

Obviously these can be explained away naturalistically, but they can still be used as foundations for arguing for the existence of God.


I would also argue that theism is more probable than atheism, but I'm not sure if you're willing to get into a full-scale existence of God debate right now.

Yea, you guessed right.

At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:15:48 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

As an atheist in the UK, I tend not to assume theists are creationists. I don't really come across creationists because they don't want to voice their views and therefore commit social suicide.

Although in terms of rationality, I don't disinguish between the two.

Shouldn't you? For theism is generally a more rational position than creationism...

It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse? The scientific community has one answer for that... they don't know what happened before the big bang. That's the beauty of science. It's a mystery and I find that fascinating.

That's odd, because when theists say something along the lines of 'God works in mysterious ways' or they appeal to mystery, they are derided as being rationally stubborn.

And rightly so. A theist makes wild claims about a creator of the entire universe but without adequate explanation or evidence. A scientist provides the explanation and evidence in order to make the claim. The two are opposite.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:11:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:50:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I agree, although I believe theists are a bit unrational on some other issues, since the very belief on something as a God, feels kind of unrational to me and probably to most atheists.

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

In a conversation about probability, facts are irrelevant as God can neither be proven or disproven. The same applies to the tooth fairy and any other mythical creature you can think of.
To believe is to know nothing.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:15:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

No, thinking is more rational than believing.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

LOL. Yes, that would be a belief.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:16:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?

In terms of the comparison between theistic and scientific assertions, absolutely.
To believe is to know nothing.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:23:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:16:56 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?

In terms of the comparison between theistic and scientific assertions, absolutely.
So would you include in the list of things "having no foundation" such things as String Theory?

Also, are you familiar with G"del's incompleteness theorems?
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:36:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:23:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:16:56 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?

In terms of the comparison between theistic and scientific assertions, absolutely.
So would you include in the list of things "having no foundation" such things as String Theory?

Also, are you familiar with G"del's incompleteness theorems?

I'll humour you and say yes, String Theory has no foundation. However you confuse the very nature of what we're discussing. String Theory is just that, a theory. A theist deals in so called factual claims, not theories. Therefore such a position is fundamentally irrational.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:37:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:23:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:16:56 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?

In terms of the comparison between theistic and scientific assertions, absolutely.
So would you include in the list of things "having no foundation" such things as String Theory?

Also, are you familiar with G"del's incompleteness theorems?

Sorry, no I'm not familiar with that.
To believe is to know nothing.
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 3:43:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:15:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

No, thinking is more rational than believing.

So you don't believe your own statement. Wow, such credibility! I am in awe.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

LOL. Yes, that would be a belief.

Which also doubles as a fact.
Jayhawker_Soule
Posts: 169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 4:00:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:36:05 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:23:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:16:56 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?

In terms of the comparison between theistic and scientific assertions, absolutely.
So would you include in the list of things "having no foundation" such things as String Theory?

Also, are you familiar with G"del's incompleteness theorems?

I'll humour you and say yes, String Theory has no foundation.

OK. Thanks.

However you confuse the very nature of what we're discussing.

No, you believe that I "confuse the very nature of what we're discussing. ".

String Theory is just that, a theory. A theist deals in so called factual claims, not theories. Therefore such a position is fundamentally irrational.

That is not necessarily, true. The sole claim I have made is that in a causal universe positing a first cause is perfectly rational.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 4:34:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:11:29 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:50:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I agree, although I believe theists are a bit unrational on some other issues, since the very belief on something as a God, feels kind of unrational to me and probably to most atheists.

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

In a conversation about probability, facts are irrelevant as God can neither be proven or disproven. The same applies to the tooth fairy and any other mythical creature you can think of.

Same applies to a lot of things. But the possibility of God is real. As is the model logic argument for God proven to be mathimatically valid.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 4:38:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:15:38 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

No, thinking is more rational than believing.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

LOL. Yes, that would be a belief.

Lol beluef means to accept something as true.. how do you think this acceptance comes about? Reasonable belief by thinking
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 4:50:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I think you've made a very good point, one which others and I have tried to make before. If you are only going to attack the extremists then everyone is going to seem "evil" on both sides.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2015 6:43:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:50:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I agree, although I believe theists are a bit unrational on some other issues, since the very belief on something as a God, feels kind of unrational to me and probably to most atheists.

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

Well, since there's absolutely no experimental proof that God exists, it is safe to assume atheism is more rational than theism, but by no means is absolute atheism the paradigm of rationality, imo having a little uncertainty is more rigorous from a scientific perspective.

As for atheism being a poison, I let you with a quote I'm sure you already know: "Die Religion ist das Opium des Volkes" or "Religion is the opium of the people".
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 9:46:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 4:00:18 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:36:05 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:23:47 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:16:56 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:07:19 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:01:41 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:54:48 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:46:03 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:34:27 PM, Jayhawker_Soule wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:28:16 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:18:34 PM, Philocat wrote:
It sounds harsh and I'm not writing this to ruffle feathers, but theism and creationism are both guilty of having no foundations, no evidence, not even a favourable probability.

What is the favorable probability of an uncaused universe or multiverse? How was this calculated? How tested?

Who said anything about an uncaused universe or multiverse?
I did.

So, in an arguably causal universe you deem inference from First Cause without foundation.

No, not the first cause. Only inference concerning what happened straight after the big bang, which is what we are able to measure and test.
But all you've said here is that inferring deity from the posited requirement of a first cause is unscientific. I agree. But are you thereby claiming that only scientific theorems (measurable and falsifiable inferences) are founded and, therefore, rational?

In terms of the comparison between theistic and scientific assertions, absolutely.
So would you include in the list of things "having no foundation" such things as String Theory?

Also, are you familiar with G"del's incompleteness theorems?

I'll humour you and say yes, String Theory has no foundation.

OK. Thanks.

However you confuse the very nature of what we're discussing.

No, you believe that I "confuse the very nature of what we're discussing. ".


With good reason. A Theory, by definition, is not a factual claim, it's an idea. If it is proven to be a fact then it is no longer a theory. Take evolution for example. If you want to say it is a fact that God exists, you need to present satisfactory evidence, which you know is not possible.

String Theory is just that, a theory. A theist deals in so called factual claims, not theories. Therefore such a position is fundamentally irrational.

That is not necessarily, true. The sole claim I have made is that in a causal universe positing a first cause is perfectly rational.

I don't accept that. Science is the authority on fact so you must therefore follow the scientific method. Any other attempt to create a fact is irrational as a result.
To believe is to know nothing.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2015 9:51:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/4/2015 4:34:00 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:11:29 PM, Impartial wrote:
At 1/4/2015 3:05:50 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 1/4/2015 2:50:56 PM, Otokage wrote:
At 12/21/2014 12:31:30 PM, Philocat wrote:
I just want to highlight something here that appears to be painfully lacking on DDO. Most atheists on here refute creationism instead of refuting theism because, frankly, it is easy to argue against creationism and it is the creationists who seem the most vocal in defence of religion.

There are many theists who accept evolution, the veracity of science, heliocentricity and other commonly accepted concepts, only fundamentalists (mainly in the USA) take the entirety of the Old Testament to be empirical fact instead of the symbolic meaning it really has.

To conclude, I am saying that atheists on here should stop assuming that all theists are creationists (and subsequently concluding the idiocy of the former) and be willing to engage in debate with rational theists; not take the easy path of debating creationists.

I agree, although I believe theists are a bit unrational on some other issues, since the very belief on something as a God, feels kind of unrational to me and probably to most atheists.

You mean people think the way they think is more rational than those that disagree.. wow such novel idea.

I guess atheist are right and theist wrong becuase an atheist said atheism is more rational. Strange I think atheism is a mental poison that degrades mental accuity.

In a conversation about probability, facts are irrelevant as God can neither be proven or disproven. The same applies to the tooth fairy and any other mythical creature you can think of.

Same applies to a lot of things. But the possibility of God is real. As is the model logic argument for God proven to be mathimatically valid.

Yes, I agree, it's possible. But it is astonishingly unlikely. I don't understand how you use mathematics to bolster your argument. It's a new one for me. Please could you expand on that?
To believe is to know nothing.