• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Theists and atheists( P.S.)

kowalskil

kowalskil

Member
Theists and Atheists (P.S.)​

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless futile conflicts between theists and atheists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

theo_sci

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

Ludwik Kowalski
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
.
 
I'm wondering exactly which "endless, futile" conflicts you're referring to. If it's between those who believe in 0 gods and those who believe in >0 gods, then they're unlikely to reach some sort of halfway agreement on that. But most of the conflicts that actually matter, as far as I can see, aren't between atheists and theists but between secular and religious views of how society should work. That's very much not the same thing.
 
beer good said:
I'm wondering exactly which "endless, futile" conflicts you're referring to. If it's between those who believe in 0 gods and those who believe in >0 gods, then they're unlikely to reach some sort of halfway agreement on that. But most of the conflicts that actually matter, as far as I can see, aren't between atheists and theists but between secular and religious views of how society should work. That's very much not the same thing.
Click to expand...

No, I am not thinking about the views about secular views or political views. The futile "we are better than you" debates are those about God. Note that I deliberately avoided the word "religion." It stands for much more than "theism." Dealing with too many topics at the same time is not likely to be productive.

Ludwik
.
 
I think one thing to keep in mind is that as humans we always think our way of thinking is correct. If someone counters that, then we don't believe them.
I like the song lyric "How can you say your truth is better than ours?"
There will be conflict because of this idea.
 
kowalskil said:
No, I am not thinking about the views about secular views or political views. The futile "we are better than you" debates are those about God. Note that I deliberately avoided the word "religion." It stands for much more than "theism." Dealing with too many topics at the same time is not likely to be productive.

Ludwik
.
Click to expand...

OK, so which debates in particular are you thinking of, and why are they so important to overcome?
 
But why are they such a big deal? It's just people squabbling on the internet, after all. And why is it so important to stop them? What makes them futile?

aimgs.xkcd.com_comics_duty_calls.png
 
Well, a good discussion is good for us all, in my humble opinion. (I could be wrong..on the internet ;0)
 
beer good said:
But why are they such a big deal? It's just people squabbling on the internet, after all. And why is it so important to stop them? What makes them futile?

aimgs.xkcd.com_comics_duty_calls.png
Click to expand...

I also like your picture.

Go to bed, you do not know what you are missing.

Ludwik
.
 
I wonder when you'll come back again to shove another vaguely worded essay down our collective throats.
 
Zolipara said:
You lost me when you compared mathematics to theology.
Click to expand...

Mathematicians accept axioms, they call them self-evident truths. For example--only one straight line passes through two points. Then they use logic, often formal logic, and derive consequences resulting from what has already been accepted (axioms). These consequences are called proved theorems. A statement that has been proved (shown to be consistent with axioms and already proven theorems) is said to be true; a statement that logically conflicts with what has already been accepted, is rejected.

Theologians do the same. They begin with axioms (initially accepted statements, usually from holy books) and logically validate new statements. These are either accepted or rejected, depending on outcomes of logical analysis. Unlike mathematicians, theologians use mostly words not equations.

Neither mathematicians nor theologists conduct laboratory experiments to validate or refute various claims. That method of validation is used by scientists.

I hope I expressed myself more clearly this time.

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)
Professor Emeritus
Montclair State University, USA
.
 
kowalskil said:
I hope I expressed myself more clearly this time.
Click to expand...

It was never unclear, just so far-fetched you have to be religious to accept it. Are you really comparing a straight line through two points with believing in the flying spaghetti monster? And then you claim that theologists use logical analysis to accept or refute statements? Seriously?

Your text is a perfect example of why there are "conflicts" between atheists and theologists.
 
beer good said:
I'm wondering exactly which "endless, futile" conflicts you're referring to. If it's between those who believe in 0 gods and those who believe in >0 gods, then they're unlikely to reach some sort of halfway agreement on that. But most of the conflicts that actually matter, as far as I can see, aren't between atheists and theists but between secular and religious views of how society should work. That's very much not the same thing.
Click to expand...

I agree, religion = theism + much more
 
kowalskil said:
I agree, religion = theism + much more
Click to expand...

P.S.

Most debates are probably not about theism. But I am interested in debates between theists and scientists, outside of politics, outside of conflicts between religions, etc. they become futile when methods of refutation acceptable in one world (material or spiritual) are used in another world.

Ludwik Kowalski
 
Sorry, that sounded overly harsh. What I mean is that I still don't see why it's such a big deal that people on the net debate religion, why it's a problem that it's "futile". Humans discuss things. It's pretty much the one thing that sets us apart. Sure, not every debate leads anywhere (Team Edward or Team Jacob?) but that's in the nature of discussion. All debate doesn't serve to determine that one side is right and the other wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top