Why Debate the Existence of God, I Mean, What's The Point?

[kashmir]

kashmir,

I have no problem with your post, I was just responding. As you know, drawing cartoons of Islam's prophet has caused a lot of trouble in the very recent past. Writing novels about Islam's prophet has caused lots of trouble in the very recent past.

I'd say that sometimes "laugh at" is the best response. If were to tell you that I think the moon is made out of cheese, you might well laugh at me.

This is important. One person MUST have the right to laugh at another person's ideas. Full stop, no exceptions. You're correct, it might not always be the most productive thing to do. But people MUST be allowed to do it. If I find a piece of cherished scripture to be ridiculous, you must defend my right to say so, even if you cherish that scripture.

What do you think?

______________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"

Laughter is the best meds, consider my first post, I said a few jokes.
Surely if your doc is coming to tell you seriously bad news, you wouldn't want him saying.
"you have six months to live, can I have your cd collection when you expire?"
Or "make sure you have me paid off by then"
Actually, I may find humor in it, because i just made it up, I have a very good sense of humor, but not everyone on this planet would find that funny and may even physically attack the doc.

edit:
I had a kind of serious surgery a few years back, while in the surgery room as they were getting stuff ready, the doc was joking with the guy who was doing the camera part that was to be injected into me, and said "you want to do the surgery this time, you seen me do it enough times now, I can do the camera part instead, while assisting you"
I joined in and said "I got this, everyone just go have a beer and take a break, I will just operate on myself, all I need is google"

 

[Bunyip]

Is there any point in debating the existence of God?

Absolutely there is a point. There are essentially two approaches a society can take towards establishing values, ethics, morals and laws. The faith approach, in which these crucial factors are determined upon interpretations of ancient mythological texts, and the Socratic approach where they are determined according to logic, knowledge and reason.

The future development of society depends upon the move away from ancient superstitions and into the light of reason.

 

[Quintessence]

Absolutely there is a point. There are essentially two approaches a society can take towards establishing values, ethics, morals and laws. The faith approach, in which these crucial factors are determined upon interpretations of ancient mythological texts, and the Socratic approach where they are determined according to logic, knowledge and reason.

The future development of society depends upon the move away from ancient superstitions and into the light of reason.

Eh... don't you think that's a bit of an oversimplification? :sarcastic

 

[Bunyip]

Eh... don't you think that's a bit of an oversimplification? :sarcastic

Of course, it would have been inappropriate to post an essay.

The era of enlightenment is what heralded the modern age, it was when we left the dark superstitions of the past behind us and moved towards the light.

The age of reason was the greatest leap forward in human society since we left the caves, but that process is incomplete and the shadows and scars of our primitive past still haunt us.

 

[Quintessence]

Of course, it would have been inappropriate to post an essay.

The era of enlightenment is what heralded the modern age, it was when we left the dark superstitions of the past behind us and moved towards the light.

The age of reason was the greatest leap forward in human society since we left the caves, but that process is incomplete and the shadows and scars of our primitive past still haunt us.

That... is totally not what I was getting at. But sure. You have your mythology, I have mine, and I'm pretty content to leave you to yours.

 

[psychoslice]

I usually feel a bit embarrassed trying to debate a god, its like telling a child that there is no Santa clause, or Easter bunny.

 

[Bunyip]

That... is totally not what I was getting at. But sure. You have your mythology, I have mine, and I'm pretty content to leave you to yours.

My apologies for misunderstanding, would you please elaborate?

I would also like to know what you mean by ' my mythology'?

 

[Quintessence]

My apologies for misunderstanding, would you please elaborate?

I would also like to know what you mean by ' my mythology'?

In simple terms, I disagree with the story you tell - your mythology - about the course of human history and how people go about creating meaning. You see two (incompatible) approaches to life's big questions, and the story you tell is that one is superior to the other. You appear to be a believer in what I like to call the myth of progress, which views human history as a march towards improvement. People who hold to the myth of progress tend to stare down their noses at the ways of our ancestors, diminishing their value and assessing them as inferior.

This cultural narrative is very pervasive in my country, and it holds influence in a wide variety of fields. Early anthropology, for example, held to the myth of progress in evaluating theistic ideas: animism and polytheism were regarded as "primitive" and "inferior" stepping stones to the "obviously superior" monotheism. The atheists of today have added another layer onto that myth of progress by claiming non-theism is "obviously superior" to monotheism and a required next step for "human progress." But none of this is really true in any objective sense; it's a mythology we tell that we spin that is informed by our personal values and our need for a positive self-image. Scoffing at the "primitivism" of our ancestors helps affirm that we are on the correct path or that we have "the truth."

I do not believe in the myth of progress, but I understand why it has broad appeal in my culture. It serves well for certain types of values and virtues, but poorly for others. It was thrown out of modern anthropology because it is inevitably very ethnocentric and therefore not particularly objective. But if you want a narrative that buttresses your way of life as the "best" way of doing things, it's a solid pick.

 

[LuisDantas]

I usually feel a bit embarrassed trying to debate a god, its like telling a child that there is no Santa clause, or Easter bunny.

I know the feeling.

 

[Vinayaka]

I feel embarrassed just entering a debate. Like anyone ever changes their mind.

 

[Desert Snake]

I usually feel a bit embarrassed trying to debate a god, its like telling a child that there is no Santa clause, or Easter bunny.

I don't think that is a good approach, it's just confusing when someone isn't honest about atheism or whatever.

 

[Bunyip]

In simple terms, I disagree with the story you tell - your mythology - about the course of human history and how people go about creating meaning. You see two (incompatible) approaches to life's big questions, and the story you tell is that one is superior to the other. You appear to be a believer in what I like to call the myth of progress, which views human history as a march towards improvement. People who hold to the myth of progress tend to stare down their noses at the ways of our ancestors, diminishing their value and assessing them as inferior.

Well sure. I absolutely believe that ethics, morals and so on derived from knowledge and wisdom are superior to those drawn from human interpretations of ancient scriptures. Deriving values, laws and morals from scriptures renders them to be entirely subjective and utterly dependant upon the interpretation. I must admit that I found your 'myth of progress' comment astonishing - at the time of Jesus the average life expectancy was about 33, most people died in agony from dental infections very young. The ancient world was a brutal, dangerous and filthy place.

How anyone could seriously imagine that progress is a myth frankly amazes me. You have dentists, anaesthetic, peace, hot water, electricity, flushing toilets and live a life a king of a few centuries ago would aspire to and yet do not believe in progress as we communicate across the earth on the internet. The only people who believe in 'the good old days' only do so because they do not know their history, there were no 'good old days', you are better off than any previous generation.

This cultural narrative is very pervasive in my country, and it holds influence in a wide variety of fields. Early anthropology, for example, held to the myth of progress in evaluating theistic ideas: animism and polytheism were regarded as "primitive" and "inferior" stepping stones to the "obviously superior" monotheism. The atheists of today have added another layer onto that myth of progress by claiming non-theism is "obviously superior" to monotheism and a required next step for "human progress." But none of this is really true in any objective sense; it's a mythology we tell that we spin that is informed by our personal values and our need for a positive self-image. Scoffing at the "primitivism" of our ancestors helps affirm that we are on the correct path or that we have "the truth."

I don't really see that distinction, Christianity with the trinity is not really distinct from polytheism - it is essentially polytheistic. However I would certainly see non-theism as being progress over superstition. I'm not scoffing at primitivism at all, I am simply recognising it for what it is - primitive.

I do not believe in the myth of progress, but I understand why it has broad appeal in my culture. It serves well for certain types of values and virtues, but poorly for others. It was thrown out of modern anthropology because it is inevitably very ethnocentric and therefore not particularly objective. But if you want a narrative that buttresses your way of life as the "best" way of doing things, it's a solid pick.

Then turn off your computer, unplug your TV and go to one of the places on earth where such progress has not been made. If you think progress is a myth, go to Somalia with your family and see how you like it.

I don't mean to offend you, but I am certain that you will change your mind.

 

[psychoslice]

I don't think that is a good approach, it's just confusing when someone isn't honest about atheism or whatever.

Well for me personally there is no other approach, like I said, to me its embarrassing.

 

[steeltoes]

I usually feel a bit embarrassed trying to debate a god, its like telling a child that there is no Santa clause, or Easter bunny.

There's no Santa or Easter bunny?

 

[Desert Snake]

Well for me personally there is no other approach, like I said, to me its embarrassing.

I'm unclear as to why that would be embarrassing. I talk to atheists all the time, it's a matter of opinion.

 

[psychoslice]

There's no Santa or Easter bunny?

Shhhh, don't let the kids know.

 

[steeltoes]

Shhhh, don't let the kids know.

What about God? Don't tell the adults?

 

[psychoslice]

I'm unclear as to why that would be embarrassing. I talk to atheists all the time, it's a matter of opinion.

I don't have a belief in a god, but also don't call myself an atheist, I supposer its the meaning of what god is to you, the embarrassing one is the old man with the beard who sits somewhere in the sky with his son on his right hand side in a place called heaven, that is the belief that I find embarrassing to talk about, Oh my god I'm going red in the face lol.

 

[psychoslice]

What about God? Don't tell the adults?

Ha, good one lol.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't have a belief in a god, but also don't call myself an atheist, I supposer its the meaning of what god is to you, the embarrassing one is the old man with the beard who sits somewhere in the sky with his son on his right hand side in a place called heaven, that is the belief that I find embarrassing to talk about, Oh my god I'm going red in the face lol.

I see...I would guess you were once theistic then?

But, yeah I don't talk religion with strangers or something lol, just didn't know what you meant.