DA 03: Atheism vs. Theism

[aneeshm]

This is thread 03 in the Devil's Advocate line of threads.

In these threads, all posters have to take exactly the opposite stance to the ones they usually take. Thus, for example, I will defend Shariah law and defend the "rights" of Muslims to take four wives if they want. And I'll do it sincerely, not satirically.

Please read the rules before taking part in this debate. The rules and list of topics are given here: Let's play Devil's Advocate!.

This topic is dedicated to the age-old debate - atheism vs. theism. For some time, atheists will become ardent defenders of religion, and theists will become either atheists or agnostics, whichever they find most opposed to their faith. Note that a bigger debate (Monotheism vs. Pantheism vs. Polytheism in culture) will be done later, so this is solely concerned with religion in general, and not a particular manifestation or type of religion.

I'm myself an agnostic, so there doesn't really exist an opposing position (except a pragmatically opposed one, which I will be elaborating upon further in this thread).

Let the chaos begin!

 

[aneeshm]

As promised:

We are not concerned here with the correctness or wrongness of the ideology or state of agnosticism. What we are concerned with are its effects.

Faith or a lack of faith - both involve taking up a position, and sticking with it. They allow you to build a morality upon their foundation. They allow a coherent worldview, and consequently, a positive ideology and an ability to take action. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is like a foundation of quicksand - nothing solid can be built upon it and last.

And agnosticism been the dominant ideology of mankind, we would never have progressed to the state we are today. And that is why it must never be allowed to gain a status of dominance. Progress would stop, because motivation, born of positive belief, would die.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

On a similar note, faith is itself useful in all enterprises besides those of scientific inquery. Faith in one's leadership brings unity, faith in one's community brings trust. A world without faith is one where each person is constantly suspicious and untrusting of his neighbor, and such a society could never hold itself up.

At times, it is necessary to give up the endless scrutiny of all things. Time spent searching for a seamless worldview could be better spent for the betterment of one's community. It must be accepted that we can never know all there is to know, and that such knowledge would not help us much anyway. The persuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is folly.

Whatever religion you follow, it is better to follow it than to cast out the lessons and beliefs of those that created the world you live in. In today's world, people must have some idealogy to cling to, or they will be set adrift, at the pain of themselves and others.

 

[scipian]

To start out, it is useless to say that there IS a god. We don't have to listen to your "faith" since the burdon of proof is on YOU to prove that god exists. Those agnostics are okay though; they can say matter of factly that there's no way of knowing. Still, we also can safely say that there is no god since there is no scientific proof. If there is no proof, something is assumed to be false. Just elemental science, people.

 

[aneeshm]

On a similar note, faith is itself useful in all enterprises besides those of scientific inquery. Faith in one's leadership brings unity, faith in one's community brings trust. A world without faith is one where each person is constantly suspicious and untrusting of his neighbor, and such a society could never hold itself up.

At times, it is necessary to give up the endless scrutiny of all things. Time spent searching for a seamless worldview could be better spent for the betterment of one's community. It must be accepted that we can never know all there is to know, and that such knowledge would not help us much anyway. The persuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is folly.

Whatever religion you follow, it is better to follow it than to cast out the lessons and beliefs of those that created the world you live in. In today's world, people must have some idealogy to cling to, or they will be set adrift, at the pain of themselves and others.

Precisely! Belief in something, which is the foundation of all thought, is necessary.

Scientific inquiry should be a field of its own, and should not extend its methodology to religion or belief, where it is inapplicable anyway. Science should be divorced from religion, and the two should not collide. Even if this leads to a small fringe group causing problems, it is still beneficial for the majority.

Man cannot live on doubt.

 

[scipian]

On a similar note, faith is itself useful in all enterprises besides those of scientific inquery. Faith in one's leadership brings unity, faith in one's community brings trust. A world without faith is one where each person is constantly suspicious and untrusting of his neighbor, and such a society could never hold itself up.

At times, it is necessary to give up the endless scrutiny of all things. Time spent searching for a seamless worldview could be better spent for the betterment of one's community. It must be accepted that we can never know all there is to know, and that such knowledge would not help us much anyway. The persuit of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is folly.

Whatever religion you follow, it is better to follow it than to cast out the lessons and beliefs of those that created the world you live in. In today's world, people must have some idealogy to cling to, or they will be set adrift, at the pain of themselves and others.

The opposite of faith isn't suspicion. The opposite is rational thinking. If a person thinks rationally they will make BETTER choices than those of faith alone.

Also you mention how people need a standard to follow. Why waste that standard on religion when you can use it for your country, your community, something useful? Religion is just a vehicle for diminishing the natural urges to help others. Without it people will find some other, better way to release their goodwill.

(BTW-Back to my real self. I'm being confident and rude because I usually try to be polite and not to be overly confident in views where opinions vary.)

 

[azzaman333]

The opposite of faith isn't suspision. The opposite is rational thinking. If a person thinks rationally they will make BETTER choices than those of faith alone.

If it takes a person believing in God for them to do good, why should you try and crush their faith? Isn't goodness what we all want from everyone, and the easiest way to achieve that is through religion.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

The opposite of faith isn't suspision. The opposite is rational thinking. If a person thinks rationally they will make BETTER choices than those of faith alone.

Also you mention how people need a standrad to follow. Why waste that standard on religion when you can use it for your country, your community, something useful? Religion is just a vehicle for diminishing the natural urges to help others. Without it people will find some other, better way to release their goodwill

Perhaps they'd make better choices for themselves (and even that is up for debate), but better for the community? Not likely. Sometimes it's necessary to put some faith in your neighbors. Also, virtually all religions promise some sort of divine penalty for living your life well at the expense of others. Such teachings help keep citizens in line.

 

[scipian]

If it takes a person believing in God for them to do good, why should you try and crush their faith? Isn't goodness what we all want from everyone, and the easiest way to achieve that is through religion.

Yes, but there are the side effects of discrimination, laws enforcing artificial morality, bad science being taught to our children, and many other authoritarian enforcements of one narrow ideology upon others. We liberals do the same good but without forcing our views on others. So, we get the same end results but also allow everyone the liberty to choose their own life choices.

 

[scipian]

Perhaps they'd make better choices for themselves (and even that is up for debate), but better for the community? Not likely. Sometimes it's necessary to put some faith in your neighbors. Also, virtually all religions promise some sort of divine penalty for living your life well at the expense of others. Such teachings help keep citizens in line.

Again, faith and trust are different. You can be an atheist and still have trust in humanity and your fellow men. In fact, religion leads to seperation and distrust between the different religious groups and agsint those who are not religious.

Yes, they do do that, I admit. but when is it actually practiced? The rich Christians apparently don't have any qualms about being rich while people starve. We LIBERALS are the ones attempting to allow everyone the same standard of living while the rightist Christians attempt to lower taxes and cut benefits for those who need it most.

 

[azzaman333]

Yes, but there are the side effects of discrimination, laws enforcing artificial morality, bad science being taught to our children, and many other authoritarian enforcements of one narrow ideology upon others. We liberals do the same good but without forcing our views on others. So, we get the same end results but also allow everyone the liberty to choose their own life choices.

Religion isn't any more descriminatory than a lack of religion, its the person's choice whther they want to descriminate.

 

[scipian]

Religion isn't any more descriminatory than a lack of religion, its the person's choice whther they want to descriminate.

But they attempt to institutionalize it. Is segregation okay since "its the person's choice whther they want to descriminate"? No, we have to defend the freedoms of some hated groups to protect democracy and our way of life.

(Gotta go to school now . but it really is interesting to debate the opposite of your views).

 

[Mirc]

To start out, it is useless to say that there IS a god.

Exactly. Actually I believe that religion has never brought anything good to the world: only wars, hatred between different religions, discrimination, etc.
The very few good things that it brought like church songs are useless and we could do without them

So I am saying that there is no point in being theist at all, because it will only bring you trouble your whole life, and also you are not going to be totally free ever.

 

[GenMarshall]

(Non-Devil's Advocate mode: I am a religious Roman Catholic Christians and believe in God)
DA Mode: I find atheism is better because I dont have to waste my time worrying about some person in space.

Note: I added in the NDAM to avoid confusion like the Iraq war DA one)

 

[Masquerouge]

Theism is obviously better because all religions have morals, therefore morals are religious, and thus atheists are amoral beings.
Furthermore theism is the best answer to what we don't know - God!, and we don't know a lot, so God is usually the best answer.
Finally theists people are guaranteed to not burn in Hell - or else what would be the point of being a theist, if you knew you were going to Hell after your death?

 

[scipian]

Theism is obviously better because all religions have morals, therefore morals are religious, and thus atheists are amoral beings.
Furthermore theism is the best answer to what we don't know - God!, and we don't know a lot, so God is usually the best answer.
Finally theists people are guaranteed to not burn in Hell - or else what would be the point of being a theist, if you knew you were going to Hell after your death?

That argument is the purest example of a fallacy I've seen in a long time. Just because all religions have morals doesn't mean that other groups can't have morals too. That's just silly. I know many atheists who act out there morals moreso than Christians or the religious.

So, we don't know anything about life so we assertively say that a big god exists, no doubt about it? That's utterly illogical. If we don't know we should be agnostics and since there's been no hard evidence of a deity in the 10,000s years of human history it would make MUCH more sense to say that there is no deity. I can't prove my point, but your point has even LESS facts to support it.

So.... If I say that after death I'll be in a giant perpetual Civ IV game does that mean it will happen? No, it's just fantasy. Sure, you can believe that if you want but it doesn't make it true.

(Like CivGeneral, I just want to state that I'm a fairly strong protestant and just really enjoying voicing various thoughts I've had over the years).

 

[Xanikk999]

There is no logic in religious beliefs so its going to be hard to defend it...

But here goes. Hmmm...

Where does our consiounse come from? Must be a soul!

 

[Masquerouge]

That argument is the purest example of a fallacy I've seen in a long time. Just because all religions have morals doesn't mean that other groups can't have morals too. That's just silly. I know many atheists who act out there morals moreso than Christians or the religious.

Yet all early civilizations are religious, and all early moral codes are religious, and all atheist morals have a religious precedent. Find me just one example of an atheistic moral that was not first a religious one.

So, we don't know anything about life so we assertively say that a big god exists, no doubt about it? That's utterly illogical. If we don't know we should be agnostics and since there's been no hard evidence of a deity in the 10,000s years of human history it would make MUCH more sense to say that there is no deity. I can't prove my point, but your point has even LESS facts to support it.

The simple fact that there will ALWAYS be something that we will not known is proof that there must be a God. We will NEVER be able to FULLY and COMPLETELY understand how things work, because everything has a divine origin and thus will always have an irreductible component that will remain forever outside the realm of our comprehension. Or else, if we were able to understand everything, then we would be able to understand God, and He would stop being God, then, wouldn't He?

So.... If I say that after death I'll be in a giant perpetual Civ IV game does that mean it will happen? No, it's just fantasy. Sure, you can believe that if you want but it doesn't make it true.

All I say is better safe than sorry. Since neither you nor I can be certain of what's after death, why not take the safe bet?

(Like CivGeneral, I just want to state that I'm a fairly strong protestant and just really enjoying voicing various thoughts I've had over the years).

that was very good. At first I really believed you were being serious

 

[Shadylookin]

religion provides community, support, a sense of meaning, and morality. Religion binds people together.

God provides a safety net, even in ones darkest hours there is still a being that cares for you.

At someones birth no one would be very happy if you referred to someone's newborn as a meaningless spec life, and at someones death I imagine you would get some nasty looks if you called the deceased worm food(yet without religion that's what it boils down to). Religion gives humanity a higher purpose a semi-divine one in fact.

Religion gives many people a sense of happiness and most derive there morality from it. While atheists aren't necessarily immoral their world view is amoral. There is no reason for an atheists not to do something bad that will benefit them if there are no repercussions because they do not believe in a higher being that will punish them for their wrongdoings.

I'll be the first to admit religion doesn't have a squeaky clean track record, but i think it's safe to say most atrocities committed in the name of religion aren't really about religion, but rather and ulterior motive. Also the few bad apples shouldn't discredit all relgious, no more than science should be discredited when an invention can kill people.

 

[warpus]

I believe that the truth speaks for itself

Genesis 1:11 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so."

Genesis 3:18 "... thou shalt eat the herb of the field."

Psalms 104:14 "He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man."

Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia is God. Case closed.