Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

What makes you believe that? I'm sure that in this thread alone there are countless posts that suggest that I do have a thought process.

Edited by Mr ProgFreak - August 16 2010 at 09:25

Fixed.

Dean wrote: Trademark wrote: Chris S wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^I still think that posing the question is important in that it can start a thought process within people who used to think that they're religious, but who have never given much thought to it. Obviously that doesn't include people like Iván or jampa17, but it does include the majority of Christians (and Muslims) IMO. I reckon you are a closet Theist Mike, just waiting for the right argument to convince you   Peace... Mike's not in the closet.  He worships Richard Dawkins. That jibe has worn thin now Tom.

If it were a jibe I'd have to say "point taken".  However I'm just recording observable facts.  Mike's statements to the contrary are testimonial and unverifiable and therefore not allowed into the discussion.  I'm making a reasonable statement based on the facts of the many (many, many,many) threads he's started.

Hey Mike,

Adams Bolero wrote: Textbook wrote: I've pulled out of the thread on the grounds that it is a futile discussion because the mind of a theist doesn't work properly and the debate is about as fruitful as arguing with a lemon, except the lemon is less bitter.   (I'll probably be pulled back in at some point though.) I will conclude though by saying that the question is settled for me. Theists = wrong. Religion may decline but it will never completely go away- the question cannot be settled universally. And clearly it is also settled in the same way for MrPF. Perhaps this personal settlement the most that can be expected and the argument should be resolved with that. How could it have been anything but futile if you insultingly declare that theists minds don't work properly. It is such a wrong statement that I am left speechless. Blaise Pascal, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, G.K. Chesterton, Owen Gingerich, all these great people don't have minds that work properly? You can reject religion and argue against the existence of God but please don't overgeneralize and lump every theist into the mind doesn't work category.

seventhsojourn wrote: The mind of a theist doesn't work properly (Textbook).   I may be siding with Maher in suggesting they have a type of mental illness (Textbook).   This is pehaps simply due to a lack of understanding on my part of how a theist's mind works, in (sic) in fact it does (Textbook).     These jibes have worn thin now

...and if he had named specific thiests personally I would have said something too.

NecronCommander wrote: Hey Mike, I'm haven't really been following the thread, so I apologize if this has been brought up before. What are your views/opinions on deism, as compared to Christians?

I think that Deists have a lot less explaining to do about their position, and since their claims are entirely unfalsifiable by definition and have no impact on our daily lives, they don't bother me at all. But that doesn't mean that I think that Atheism and Deism are equally valid. Deism makes unnecessarily complex assumptions about how the universe was created - the naturalistic explanation(s) are simpler, make fewer complex assumptions and are therefore more likely to be true. But as I said: The claims are ultimately unfalsifiable and have no impact on our lives, so it's nowhere nearly as important a discussion as Atheism vs. Theism ... or Deism vs. Theism, for that matter.

Adams Bolero wrote: Textbook wrote: I've pulled out of the thread on the grounds that it is a futile discussion because the mind of a theist doesn't work properly and the debate is about as fruitful as arguing with a lemon, except the lemon is less bitter.   (I'll probably be pulled back in at some point though.) I will conclude though by saying that the question is settled for me. Theists = wrong. Religion may decline but it will never completely go away- the question cannot be settled universally. And clearly it is also settled in the same way for MrPF. Perhaps this personal settlement the most that can be expected and the argument should be resolved with that. How could it have been anything but futile if you insultingly declare that theists minds don't work properly. It is such a wrong statement that I am left speechless. Blaise Pascal, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Isaac Newton, Francis Collins, G.K. Chesterton, Owen Gingerich, all these great people don't have minds that work properly? You can reject religion and argue against the existence of God but please don't overgeneralize and lump every theist into the mind doesn't work category.

Theists can be perfectly rational ... just usually not about their religion. "Confirmation bias" is a well researched phenomenon, and as I've said repeatedly here and elsewhere, nobody's immune from it. Essentially it means that the more you invest in a theory - e.g. you base your life on it, you let others know that you endorse it, you defend it and convince others of it etc. - the more you will be prone to evaluated incoming new information in the light of this bias. So if you encounter contradictory evidence you will be biased towards rejecting it (or finding excuses to do so), and if you encounter information which seem to confirm your bias, you are more likely to accept it even if it comes from questionable sources.

This applies to religion as well as politics, audiophile equipment and astrology, homeopathy etc..

Dean wrote: Since my actions here have not met with universal approval, my only recourse is to contact another Admin to adjudicate.   dean(c)

"Denigrate" ... I had to look that word up. I think it's difficult to say when criticism becomes denigration. Of course you could focus on the wording and say that a statement like "Christianity is ridiculous" is offensive, while a more objective statement like "Original sin and Evolution are irreconcilable", but the former follows from the latter. Personally I would say that in threads like this one, which specifically discuss religion and atheism, it makes sense to not see criticism of the theories behind these religions and philosophies as offensive in and of itself. I know that some Theists here take the position "I wouldn't attack Atheism like that, so I demand that the Atheists show the same courtesy towards us". I actually think that this is offensive, too, albeit in a more clandestine way.