And to think I wrote that long thing outlining my responses to the Five, whoever old and cliche the question might be...

I will air a slight frustration of mine and just comment on how I and other folks who dare question Judeo-Christian dogma (either as a theist like me or as atheists like...others) at least, foten, give full and detailed answers and explanations why we hold our views and what our objections are and what the bases of those objections are...

But try and pose these grievances to a Believer...

I try every day, in person, on forums, formally, informally, through my writings (I hope to get them finished and published someday) and all...

And I get short answers- sometimes just four letters... nice defense...

I'm not criticizing your position, Christians- well, actually I am. But you're entitled to your view, but if you're going to hold it, and I ask you why and have serious questions and you claim to know the answer, to know what God's word on the matter is, that word BETTER not be "Fuck you, atheist, you believe or go to hell, simple as that."

Especially when I'm NOT AN ATHEIST- I HATE THEM TOO! >(

(obiwanobiwan apologizes for the vent...it has been a LONG day...)

You hate Atheists? Why?

L O L

Religion talks about love but leads to hatred, look at obiwanobiwan. ^^

I'll rephrase- I don't hate atheists like "AH! AN ATHEIST! RUNNNNNN!!!!" ;)

I just (often, I have known exceptions) find them as close-minded about the God question as fundamentalists.

One side says "X MUST exist, exist exactly how it's been written in thise here text, you must do exactly wha X's word is, we know what that word is and you cannot question it and must follow the faith or you go to hell full-stop" and the other says "X DOES NOT AT ALL exist, cannot ever exist, in any form, be it in a given form or any other kind of thought you might have about X, there is no way X can be, it is a fairy tale and many X-believers are just children or indocrinated fools, and if you believe there can be any X, you're a fool as well full-stop."

One spouts hellfire, the other spouts smugness (I'm talking about the extremes here, the Pat Robertsons on one side, who said that the Haiti Disaster was a "God-given punishment" for their "bad deed and history" and on the other side Richard Dawkins...yeah, just Dawkins, that says it all.)

So I dislike the extremes on the God question, Must-exist vs. Cannot-exist, Robertson vs. Dawkins, and fundamentalism vs. atheism (I am all for those who don't believe in God but think maybe there's another answer, that's fine, I totally support and recognize that- but to just throw your hands up and go "Well, any and all gods or higher answers cannot be or ever have been, might as well stop looking or thinking about it" is just as bad to me as "This is the answer, always has been, always will be, and there's no reason to keep looking or thinking about it." See the pattern I dislike? So if you're an atheist and NOT in that divide...let me know, maybe your version's better than the versions I myself am aquainted with, but I can only evaluate what I know, and of the forms of atheism I know, I do not judge it any more enlightened or open-minded than fundamentalists.)

Yeah those video(s) are crazy.

Not going into the theological debate here.
Wanted to comment something on the banana video: we humans have actually been artificially selecting bananas for quite some time now. This has produced bigger and nicer bananas and who knows? Maybe even ones that fit better in our hands. I'ts just because WE prefer bananas to be a certain way. I'ts sort of an argument for creationism, just not divine.

From an evolutionary point of view it's a pretty good strategy for bananas to produce fruits 'perfect' for humans :P

P.S. The videos are ofcourse: bullcrap

@ obiwan As I stated earlyer. I've not seen any evidence there is God, but you can't prove there is none. So I'm a skeptic till proven other wise. How is that being smug? All they have to do is prove there is a god. On the other hand I do not care the way other athiest act with intolerance, any more than many of the religious do.

@ obiwan

Perhaps you're letting the position, as you've stated it, color your view of both sides of the issue. For instance you're not going to see me posting on topic in this thread as I've nothing to say. Sure I'm a Christian and I think that evolution is the best explanation of the diversity of life on the planet that we now have. I am of the opinion that it neither proves nor disproves anything about Christianity. I'm also in pretty good company on that. Theodosius Dobzhansky, Dyson Freeman, and others who have both held onto their faith and made significant contributions to science and have had similar ideas. So it's not about "this is right and that's wrong". While there are people (as you've stated both theist and atheist) that want this to be a huge issue, I think that is just isn't for most people.

The problem seems to be that the ones who see the issue as completely black and white are so emotionally invested that they become loud and unyeilding. (By black and white, I mean that they see evolutionary theory as corrosive to Christianity and believe that one or the other must be false). Sure evolutionary theory frees God from a myriad of individual acts of creation but it doesn't preclude his guidance or action in kicking the process off or exerting influence on it. Evolutionary theory cannot do that because it cannot have anything to say about the immeasurable or that which cannot be observed.

On either point, the most extreme stance is insupportable. The theists find themselves arguing against a ton of valid evidence (that is if they are to try to take a story from the Holy Bible and see it as a scientific treatise rather than a creation story that was pretty common among semitic people). The atheists find themselves trying to stretch that same evidence to say something that it doesn't even approach (that is if they are to make any statement that would question the validity of Christianity on any real level).

So, we get a little circus sideshow where each side tries to goad the other into some gaff (either getting frustrated and arguing through emotion or getting so technical that nobody really wants to read what is said unless they already agree with it). So certainly there is intolerance upon both sides, but why cater to the hardcore minority positions instead of making an attempt to find common ground? I think that we'd find pretty quickly that lots of atheists and theists have remarkably similar ideas without either having to give an inch on their core values.

Also at obiwan;

Crazy Anglican's point was great, because I was just going to say something very similar, albeit from an atheists point of view. Unsurprisingly, I am going to strongly disagree about your dismissal of the mainstream atheist viewpoint as being motivated by a smug and unwarranted denial of Divinity. Few atheists (and none that I know of personally) would actually say that they know 'God' whatever that means, doesn't exist. Similarly, I will readily point out that most mainstream religious thinkers are not hardcore literalists who (for example) believe that all Science that might contradict the bible are wrong.

I for one separate the issue of whether or not God might technically exist and the limit of knowledge in that regard from the atheism/theism debate.

But more importantly, while I agree with the problem you have identified here (absolute certitude), (though I believe that certitude is more often found among fundamentalist religious types than atheists; oh so partisan, I know), and while I believe that this unwarranted certitude ought to be confronted wherever it comes from, I believe that you do a disservice to the discussion by only voicing and talking about extremist positions.

Okay they are ridiculous, but few people hold them, and fewer still of those people are respected, so let's move on already. :/

Obiwan, if you want to do a bit of research into some of the finer points of atheism, agnosticism, to improve your understanding etc. this fellow lays it out fairly well.

http://atheism.about.com/bio/Austin-Cline-5577.htm

Careful though, he's a bit long winded ;)

Please don't hate atheists. :) We certainly don't want to hurt you.

Crazy Anglican's point IS good.

However, I just don't think that we, that anyone can hope to talk to the mainstream when the extremes are shouting so loudly as to drown out the voice of true open-minded inquiry and reason.

The old saying "agree to disagree" never SOLVED anything; Nietzsche hated it, Sartre hated it (and had a really great quote on it I wish I could remember...one of those quotes where you read it and shout, "I thought only I was the ever one to have that cheeky idea!") ;)

So if ever we are to really learn the big questions, and I hold no idea dearer than that, that we should, nay, MUST strive to find the answers to the questions that plague mankind, and OVERCOME these problems...and by doing so, overcome man himself. If you know a certain German philosopher I quote far too often, you'll know he trumpets the idea of overcoming man over and over...but I can't help but think that at leat the concept is noble and right, even if his ideals are debatable. We cannot live forever as men, because, and I mean this in a logical and not in a fire-and-brimstone way, the world of men is dommed to failure. Man is flawed, and violently so, and so unless he overcomes his flaws, he will destroy himself before any plague or other external disaster can. The only way to save mankind is through the truth. That truth may be God is loving, it may be God is Dead. But at least in the former case some thinkers- Descartes and Locke come to mind, and certainly St. Aquinas- BUILT upon that idea, so that we might build up ourselves. And in the latter case, when that German philosopher I quote too much proclaimed the Death of God, he at least had an idea to follow on the heels of that, to fill the void, and so did Sartre.

But these minds, these brilliant minds (both sides have their brilliant thinkers, so I'm not favoring one or the other here on that account) are drowned out by the extremists.

Fewer people know the ideas of Aquinas or Locke or Descartes than the fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist preachers, or the "Creation Science" fellows; they are an often nameless and faceless crowd, and as such their movement is faceless, and simply slaps the face of God or Jesus on, and people look know further- fake answers from a fake messiah (meaning THEIR appropriation of Jesus, obiwanobiwan is not daring to challenge Jesus himself outright here, he was a nice guy and an actual THINKER) and the people look no further. My country celebrates its Independence tomorrow...and they don't even realize, most of them, that the ideas that made their, our Revolution possible came from LOCKE...as do many of the ideals they hold so dear but bastardize so badly, as they have never read Locke or even learned of him.

And on the other side, those that oppose God are lumped in so often with Dawkins and/or the (albeit perhaps stereotyped, but what do you expect from the poorly informed?) smug image of the Atheist, and so they, fairly or not, are viewed with contempt by the Christian masses (or at least a good chunk) and correspondingly some of them embrace this image that has been foistered upon them simply to lash back at the Christians.

It's Montagues and Capulets, folks- do we need dead Romeos and Juliets before we wake up and just work together to learn the answers to our existence (sort of important, after all, the meaning of life and God and the nature of our being and all beings)?

LOL Friendly Sword, I know Atheists won't hurt me.

Now, funamentalists might, or at theast the ones I ask questions of every day on the way to and from college (3 busses, so an Hour of Inquiry...and really dirty looks or else people who could be swayed easier than grass in the breeze, that's no intellectual and philosophical challenge!) :)

Honestly I just think your melodrama is misplaced, but w/e. ^^

I am not saying 'agree to disagree'. I am simply saying that to polarize opinions and predominately cater to extremist views in a debate where there are clear and relevant non-extremist issues that ought to be discussed (in a non-polar dynamic).... well that does a disservice to seeking ought 'the truth' as you put it.

Also, just to clear this up; what does smugness have to do with ideas? Feel free to criticize Dawkins, but I don't think your characterization of him as extremist and closeminded based on his smugness is in any way apt. He is actually quite a openminded man, his only (possible) flaw being an obsession with critiquing (valid, I might say) problems with religion.

The science in his books obviously is a bit questionable and simplified. But that's another debate.

:)

@obiwan
when you say you hate atheists because they say DOES NOT what exactly is your logic. It's one way or the other - exists or not. The example you give with people sticking to the scriptures in full is absurd - we'd be stoning people on the streets. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want atheist fundamentalism try... communism maybe?

My problem with overly zealos folk, when it comes to religious matters, is it's easy to beat them on their own groud :P

Someone here had on their profile "you're only as big as the things that make you angry" - hating atheists is not something you should agree to disagree. That's an auful lot of people :)

@ Friendly Sword

Dawkins' open mindedness and possible flaws are certainly quite another debate.

However here is my position which I've put forth in rather an over-simplified manner as well.

1) Evolutionary theory is a sound and observable theory that will
undoubtedly change and be built upon by future study.

2) Evolutionary theory has and can have nothing to say about the following:
a) the existence of God
b) the message and ministry of Jesus Christ
c) The possibility of God's instigation of the process or of his influence upon it (if we
remember that Occam's razor is merely a tool for deciding in what areas a
material search should be commenced and not a way to rule any possibilty out
without adequate study).

d) The only thing that evolutionary theory does challenge in any way is the verbatim
reading of Genesis 1:1-31 as a scientific treatise rather than a Creation story that
has something to tell us about our relationship with God.


I, of course, am one of those Christians who shake my head when I pass a church sign with "Sermon series: Where dinosaurs present on the Ark" or "Did dinosaurs and people ever live together". I see those sermons as an unnecessary overreaction to evolutionary theory. Likewise I chuckle when in a forum thread I'm characterized as a "reasonable" Christian with "enough sense to see the flaws in my religion and rationalize them" or (I'm not lying about any of these examples) someone tells me that I'm probably a closet atheist who hasn't fully come to the point of renouncing my faith.

** 3) instead of d)** I hate using outline format for that very reason.

@ everyone

I think that obiwan retrated and said he doesn't hate atheists so much as he gets frustrated with people on both side of the issue who get overly dogmatic (or stubborn if dogmatic is in some way offensive) and will apparently refuse to see their opposition as a person equal in intelligence (moral fiber, or whatever) who has merely looked at the evidence and come to a contrary conclusion.

@Friendly Sowrd:

I was talking about the face of the movement, atheism, so when I say Dawkins looks smug, I mean that it projects that image of smugness over the whole of the atheistic movement- at least to a certain degree, obviously if you get to know some atheists you can find them to be nice and friendly (eh, Friendly Sowrd?) but most people today are illiterate idiots (I don't care if that's a huge generalization, I cannot stand the illiteracy in the nation today!) and so they'll go for the stereotype, and liken them to Dawkins and the smugness- and if they don't like the "character" of the movement, they won't even listen to the real ideas they have.

Not saying it's right, just speaking from my experiences...it's the same with fundamentalists, I know people that view Christianty as always being like the "Jesus Camp" lady- God being said every two seconds and indoctrination and fire and brimstone. That's not how most Christians are, but again, the stereotyped image...

@Ivo_ivanov:

I hate that they say CANNOT, not DOES NOT. No atheistic argument has been 100% perfect in displaying there is no god anywhere and never has been and never will be, just as no Christian argument has been 100% perfect in concinving me through logic (casting the religious doma aside) that God is exactly how he is described by them, and that is the only way that God can be.

Like I said above, I despise the fact that many people just stop looking for the answer- for atheists it's a dogmatic "cannot exist, we proved it, move on" when the logic isn't yet bulletproof, and for fundamentalists its "wnhy bother looking, we FOUD the answer, the whole thing, and it's exactly as it was 5,000 years ago...yep...they didn't get a thing wrong..."

So I call both sides close-minded insofar as both have stopped exploring the question in true and earnest inquiry; if they look to it at all, it's "must be" and "cannot ever be" that dominate their thoughts...

@Crazy Anglican:

Dead on.

Clearly not "dead on" - you're still comparing apples to oranges by putting atheists next to findamentalists - I really don't know how you CANNOT see this :)

Regular atheists don't go around preaching and converting people - so I guess you only have a problem not with their actions and speach, but with what they believe. Draw your conclusions for yourself on who's a fundamentalist here...

This is really basic common sense.

I think that's his point in saying that they are similar. It's not that they say the same things or even approach their positions in precisely the same way. It's that both are ready to believe that the other's position is absolute nonsense and that any reasonable look at the evidence would support their own position. For instance if you hold that your position is basic common sense then what is your opposition's stance by definition? Nonsense?

We aren't speaking about regular atheists or regular Christians, that's the entire point. In saying that we aren't comparing apples to apples in this analogy, what exactly would you accept? Certainly atheists do not "preach" but argument is a form of getting your point across and it certainly can lead to conversion. Are you really suggesting that atheists do not argue in support of their position? Argument and preaching are not precisely the same but they are certainly close enough to lend credence to the comparison.

It might be halpful at this point to agree on a definition of Fundamentalism. I would suspect that on some level we're thinking about the term in two different ways and that's the crux of the disagreement. For instance if you think that fundamentalists, by definition, put faith before reason then an atheist could never be a fundamentalist (and indeed many fundamentalists wouldn't be either imo). However if you think that fundamentalism involves dogmatically holding on to your position without considering the possibility that another position can have merit, then many people fit into that catergory regardless of their religious beliefs.

I'm really not sure that either of those definitions are exact, so it might do for us to look into exactly what it is and come up with terms upon which we can agree.

Look, I'm an atheist. I have no problem with religious people - formally I'm a Christian, merried in church and so on, actually I believe there's more to it than just science - but my fair response to "is there God" or "can there be gods" would be NO. Keep in mind for you it's your god, but for me there's also Allah, Bhuda, ect. - it's nothing 'personal'. And I never came to you asking to change now, did I? :)

However, you're saying that I have to agree to your point (belief) else I'm compared to a fundamentalist. Hmm

Yeah, for mr that's common sense :)

Look, you're smart guys and clearly well educated and read - however one should always watch out when being too opinionated on issues he takes personally. Sorry, but your point of view is distorted - atheists are, for the sake of the argument, just another religion, they don't need to accept that your religion is valid - they have to accept you.

That's NOT what I'm saying.

I'm saying unless you, Ivo_ivanov, know the secret to all the answers of humanity and existence and know them perfectly, you cannot, then, view other views as being merely foolish.

Don't agree just to agree, of course not- but don't disagree to disagree, either.

Unless you know All, discount nothing (or at least very little.)

Obiwan

I don't *know* that jumping off a bridge will kill me but I still don't do it and I think anyone who does is foolish. You're right that we can't know for sure about god, but at some point we have to make a decision and roll with it. I think ivo has a legitamate. I think there is a destination between ones beliefs and how those beliefs make one act that you aren't acknowledging.

@ ivo

here's the problem as I see it though. Sure you have a point as abgemacht says, but the point includes an assumption that makes it inappropriate as to the discussion at hand. For instance looks at this statement:

"Keep in mind for you it's your god, but for me there's also Allah, Bhuda, ect. - it's nothing 'personal'. And I never came to you asking to change now, did I? :)"

First, I've not come to you asking you to change either. :-) I'm sure many have but I have not and neither has obiwan to my knowledge. As to arguing about something that I take personally this is so completely far from it as to be laughable.

As to the actual assumption:

Who says that I do not believe in Allah (he's essentially the same entity worshipped differently, I mean "Allah" is Arabic for "God" after all) the disagreement between Islam and Christianity isn't the existence or identitiy of God but the actual nature of Christ and Mohammed. A Christian can easily respect Islam without agreeing with it completely and vice versa.

Bhudda, likewise, existed. Siddhartha Gautama is pretty easily historically verifiable. Likewise I can respect the teachings without embracing or converting to the religion.

Certainly it becomes a little more dicey with polytheistic religions, but there is little reason that I can't be respectful of anyone else's faith and completely leave it to God as to how acceptable that worship (or mine for that matter) is to God.

As to atheism, I'm likewise not sure of God's take on it if indeed He's there to have an opinion at all. So, I'm not out to convert you and it isn't out of a calloused lack of concern for your soul. Instead I have faith that God has created this world, with it's wonderful diversity, and that there is probably something to these religions and each in its way calls to its adherents. In that respect I value the discussions with those who disagree because that gives me a chance to examine my beliefs and bring my understanding of them into sharper focus.

As to why the assumption makes your position shakey:

An atheist can be equally entrenched in his or her respective beliefs (whatever they might be) as a Christian (or anyone else) can be. I think that this is essentially what obiwan is getting to. He's basically saying that once you reach a position where any contradictory opinion isn't worth considering then the search for what's good (or useful) in your opposition's position becomes merely an automatic gainsaying of anything said without even listening.

@abgtemacht:

You DO know that jumping off the bridge will kill you, or at least you can reasonably infer that from natural causality. knowing the nature of gravity and seeing before falling from high area+concrete space=splat.

But as the conception of God is supposed to be all-powerful, a God, it would seem, should be able to do anything- and thus supercede logic...and causality.

So I'm not taking the fundamentalist Christian's side (OH NO) but I don't think your analogy is viable...

Well, to put it short - you qualified all makind into religios fundamentalist on one end, athesist on the other, and people who believe in a god, but are not extremely dogmatic, in the center.

What can I say - I guess I'm a fundamentalist then :)