RE: What the God debate is really about
March 11, 2014 at 12:10 am
(This post was last modified: March 11, 2014 at 12:33 am by *Deidre*.)
(March 10, 2014 at 10:40 pm)Rampant.A.I. Wrote:(March 10, 2014 at 6:05 pm)Deidre32 Wrote: Not to get side tracked but your "title" next to your username, whateverist...you are a Gnostic?
You know, I've often wondered...honestly often...if Christian zealots hadn't stifled the early Gnostics (killed many of them), where might that faith be?
Anyway, I just noticed that.
It would value knowledge instead of blocking it. The dark ages would never have happened. The inquisition would never have happened.
Scientists would be held in high regard by the religious. Churches would encourage scientific education instead of rejecting it.
We'd have less money-grubbing evangelists, because people would reject them philosophically.
Education would be funded more than the military. Ignorant hatemongers would be outcasts instead of preachers and spokes holes.
As far as 'religion' goes, Gnosticism doesn't sound half bad. I do believe you're right with all you say here. So sad, indeed.
whateverist, thanks for your reply, in clarifying that you are NOT a Gnostic. lol Sorry, the whole humor thing went right over my head with that one. :p
(March 10, 2014 at 9:55 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: Whateverist and Deidre, I think we should also keep in mind that what we're discussing here are only the metaphysical presumptions both atheists and theists are to some extent forced to make at the very bottom level of reasoning, or as their called, "first principles." What religion does from there is try to blur the lines between our subjective philosophies and objective facts about the world. Once they begin making claims about gods interacting in the world, having specific desires or plans for our species, etc., they can only argue that this extends beyond their own unsubstantiated (to everyone else) opinion, that is, their subjective experiences (which in my opinion don't account for jack in the domain of knowledge, i.e. public information that we are all privy to) by meeting the reasonable demand of empirical evidence... to which there is none.
Yup, agree.
Thing is, why should a debate be cheapened to accepting sources that in my opinion, are not secularly acceptable in terms of their objectivity?
Debates between ''believers'' and non-believers however, never really turn out to be productive. The reason being that religion is based on faith. Faith is based on hope, on a belief in things unseen providing that hope. Faith is largely based on hunches, and feelings, and fear. It's not based on facts. Not many religious people in general, have followed their faith based on coming to some reasonable conclusion due to overwhelming facts. lol It's not like scientific theories. You learn about a theory, and what supports it, and then see how scientists have drawn their conclusions. No feelings are involved, just straight facts, applying logic and reasoning.
So, to debate a Christian as the title of the thread here states, is really going to be a frustrating effort in futility on the part of the atheist/agnostic, for they will be applying logic and reasoning to refute something that isn't arrived at through logic and reasoning. Doh!
Holy cow, I thought I was in the 'debate a Christian' thread, thus my reply above, there. haha I guess my reply sorta fits here too, hehe.
The threads are all blurring together, now.
