The ultimate debate - Atheist vs Theist

[MrObama]

Run time: 00:26 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2CsvQdVxt8   Posted on YouTube: May 09, 2010 By YouTube Member: johnnimitz Views on YouTube: 39   Posted on DU: May 16, 2010 By DU Member: MrObama Views on DU: 719

 

[timtom]

1. The ULTIMATE...DEBATE???

Bwaahaahaahaa. A mere exchange of incredibly talking points.

Specious, at best.

[timtom]

13. This is supposed to have read:

"A mere exchange of incredibly SHALLOW talking points"

[timtom]

2. Here.

Here is a highly intelligent discussion on the matter.

[timtom]

14. And THIS was supposed to contain

the following link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8330972

(I've been under a lot of pressure lately...)

[Jack Rabbit]

3. Am I the only person at DU who has read the Critique of Pure Reason?

Kant considered the question of the existence or nonexistence of God as an antinomy, that is, something of which reasonable arguments could be made either way. When logically considered, the whole question devolves into meaninglessness. Kant himself believed in God, but admitted that his reasons for believing were not logical. Even a modern atheistic philosopher, such as Sartre, merely postulates that there is no God and makes no attempt to prove it.

A fairy is not a god. That is a very poor analogy. A fairy is a limited being with some finite magical powers. The God of which we speak in such an argument has the omnipotence to "create" the universe (or rearrange matter to bring the universe as we know it into its present state). Another feature of such a being is omniscience, but theologians, particularly Abrahamic theologians, often take this to mean an omniscience of ethical truths by which God makes judgments concerning the acts of civilized human beings. As one might suppose, the arguments of such theologians as the the nature of divine ethics and morality is as meaningless as the discussion of the existence of God in the first place. Indeed, it is this kind of thinking that has brought the human race a peck of trouble and a world of hurt and, ironically, given religion a bad name.

The fact is that to believe in an omnipotent and omniscient being implies nothing about a divine nature to human concepts like ethics or morality. Once the theist makes this additional assertion beyond the existence of God, he finds himself on thin ice. To assert that the Bible is the word of God (and we know this because it says so in the Bible) is a circular argument which, if accepted, can be used to prove any thing, such as the necessity of mass murder.

To say that a god who is omnipotent and omniscient with respect to the natural universe is concerned about any thing else is quite a leap. To my mind, religion should ask such questions as "Why are there stars in the sky instead of nothing at all?" or "What is my relationship, as an individual and as a human, to all else that is?"

[Kazak]

4. Re:

It is the ultimate proof of God's omnipotence that he need not exist in order to save us. :eyes:

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Sometimes . . .

Sometimes I feel that a militant atheist is trying to save my immortal soul by browbeating me with the (presumed) fact that I don't have one.

[Kazak]

6. Actually,...

he's only trying to save your integrity.

[Jack Rabbit]

7. Does a theist lose any just by being a theist?

I think not.

Now, by telling other people that his beliefs are better than theirs and that he's just trying to save something, then he becomes a proselytizing, self-righteous bastard.

With that, I rest my case.

[provis99]

8. you lose your critical reason.

If you are a theist, you are illogical and have no ability to reason.

[Jack Rabbit]

9. That's complete nonsense

Sir, in refutation of such a silly statement, I present to you Dr. Aquinas. Dr. Aquinas was, by any standard, a brilliant logician. He was also a theist.

[JoshieR]

10. People have the ability to...

...compartmentalize religious belief from the logical parts of their brain. I know quite a few brilliant engineers, doctors, etc that happen to be theists. I woulnd't say that they are irrational people except with respect to their religious beliefs. It's actually very odd in my opinion that some people have the ability to do this. How does one exercise rational scrutiny on so many facts in their lives, yet completely abandon rationality when reasoning for the existence of a supreme being?

Similarly, how does a person belive in and employ the fruits of modern science (internet, medicine, automobiles, flight, etc) and reconcile the belief in those scientific advancements with their personal beliefs which happen to be contrary to modern scientific facts and theories.(i.e. 6,000 year old earth, non-beliefe in human evolution, non-belief in the big-bang theory)

I find it particularly frustrating that so many theists who argue against the examples above see no difference between religious "theories" (which are basically faith-based) and scienfic theories, which have a significant number of facts supporting them.

[timtom]

12. Lame....very

[timtom]

11. Looks like you're no stranger to Heidegger, either.

Great post!