Science and Eden
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2016, 12:42 PM
Science and Eden
Hi,

A program on BBC radio last night was about the garden of Eden. It clarified an issue for me regarding Christian theists and rational, fact based, debate.

We are asked: why should we think that Christians do not accept the bible? If we think that Christians do accept the bible, then (at least metaphorically) they believe that the serpent tempted Eve in the garden. Translating this to the present day, why should they not think that anything that an unbeliever presents to them against their faith is not another temptation to that same evil?

This to me, is the irreconcilable difference between atheists and theists. It is not just that the theists see atheists as wrong, but much more than that. Theists see atheists as the very voice of the demon, tempting them with the shiny, but rotten, apple yet again and threatening them with the existential loss of everything that they hold dear, the immortal soul. For the committed Christian, the immortal soul will be the only thing of real value in this whole, infected, suffering, cosmos (as they see it).

It seems, if the above is a correct assessment, that any debate between theists and atheists is over. What else is there?

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Dworkin's post
08-09-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Science and Eden
Your post is accurate insofar as closed-minded theists are concerned.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Science and Eden
(08-09-2016 12:42 PM)Dworkin Wrote:  Hi,

A program on BBC radio last night was about the garden of Eden. It clarified an issue for me regarding Christian theists and rational, fact based, debate.

We are asked: why should we think that Christians do not accept the bible? If we think that Christians do accept the bible, then (at least metaphorically) they believe that the serpent tempted Eve in the garden. Translating this to the present day, why should they not think that anything that an unbeliever presents to them against their faith is not another temptation to that same evil?

This to me, is the irreconcilable difference between atheists and theists. It is not just that the theists see atheists as wrong, but much more than that. Theists see atheists as the very voice of the demon, tempting them with the shiny, but rotten, apple yet again and threatening them with the existential loss of everything that they hold dear, the immortal soul. For the committed Christian, the immortal soul will be the only thing of real value in this whole, infected, suffering, cosmos (as they see it).

It seems, if the above is a correct assessment, that any debate between theists and atheists is over. What else is there?

D.

I think it's an a good point you put across eloquently.

A member of my family is a Jehovas Witness. (Hold any prejudices back, most people would love him he's a brilliant guy!)

In reference to my brackets > except for when you're discussing religion. He seems to try his best to avoid scientific argument I.E evolution. Not even attempt to use many of the shit theists arguments like "if we came from monkeys why they still exist hur dur?". Total ignorance of any science that may prove his faith wrong, because it is probably the devil deceiving them.

Once that seed is planted into the mind of a man or woman, it's almost impossible for them to change their mind. It's indoctrination's holy grail.

Edit: I have to note that I do disagree with your closing statement, though.

Saints live in flames; wise men, next to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 01:56 PM
RE: Science and Eden
Hi Sunny,

Thanks for a strong reply. Your last line is what interests me. I have concluded that the debate is over, which is obviously a big call.

So, if it is not over, what form could a theist/atheist debate take? Is there any way that either side could find common ground at least to begin? Hmm, maybe Pascal's Wager is a starter. In this argument the theist is able to use logic to attract the sceptic by an appeal to rational self interest. I have not met anyone who buys it, but at least there is coherence.

What do you think?

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 02:02 PM
RE: Science and Eden
@Dworkin

Pascal's Wager is shit as somehow it is theist on question god who will be judging, not to mention false premise of losing nothing or almost nothing by chosing to believe.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 02:06 PM
RE: Science and Eden
(08-09-2016 12:42 PM)Dworkin Wrote:  Hi,

A program on BBC radio last night was about the garden of Eden. It clarified an issue for me regarding Christian theists and rational, fact based, debate.

We are asked: why should we think that Christians do not accept the bible? If we think that Christians do accept the bible, then (at least metaphorically) they believe that the serpent tempted Eve in the garden. Translating this to the present day, why should they not think that anything that an unbeliever presents to them against their faith is not another temptation to that same evil?

This to me, is the irreconcilable difference between atheists and theists. It is not just that the theists see atheists as wrong, but much more than that. Theists see atheists as the very voice of the demon, tempting them with the shiny, but rotten, apple yet again and threatening them with the existential loss of everything that they hold dear, the immortal soul. For the committed Christian, the immortal soul will be the only thing of real value in this whole, infected, suffering, cosmos (as they see it).

It seems, if the above is a correct assessment, that any debate between theists and atheists is over. What else is there?

D.

Yup, Dworkers, from my many years on many types of forum I also came to the conclusion that arguing with a closed mind gives one a pain the the forehead!

There is no reasoning with theBorg and others of a similar ilk - but it can be fun using them as the whetstone on which to sharpen one's debating and just plain arguing weapons.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
08-09-2016, 03:02 PM
RE: Science and Eden
(08-09-2016 12:42 PM)Dworkin Wrote:  Hi,

A program on BBC radio last night was about the garden of Eden. It clarified an issue for me regarding Christian theists and rational, fact based, debate.

We are asked: why should we think that Christians do not accept the bible? If we think that Christians do accept the bible, then (at least metaphorically) they believe that the serpent tempted Eve in the garden. Translating this to the present day, why should they not think that anything that an unbeliever presents to them against their faith is not another temptation to that same evil?

This to me, is the irreconcilable difference between atheists and theists. It is not just that the theists see atheists as wrong, but much more than that. Theists see atheists as the very voice of the demon, tempting them with the shiny, but rotten, apple yet again and threatening them with the existential loss of everything that they hold dear, the immortal soul. For the committed Christian, the immortal soul will be the only thing of real value in this whole, infected, suffering, cosmos (as they see it).

It seems, if the above is a correct assessment, that any debate between theists and atheists is over. What else is there?

D.

It really is over before it gets started. Debate assumes there is an objective truth to reach but theism assumes a subjective universe. There's not even any basis for a debate.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 03:39 PM
RE: Science and Eden
(08-09-2016 02:02 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  @Dworkin

Pascal's Wager is shit as somehow it is theist on question god who will be judging, not to mention false premise of losing nothing or almost nothing by chosing to believe.

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

Szuchow,

I agree that Pascal's wager is a poor effort, but that wasn't my point. My point is that the wager is an example of the question raised in the OP. The theist is (apparently) using the language of logic to appeal to the atheist, not the language of faith.

The failure of the wager is in the detail. "Choosing to believe" is not a real option. An atheist, or agnostic, might choose to pretend to believe, but that isn't the same as believing. The wager is a trick. It was a fair shot though.

D.

PS - The above is pretty much why I didn't become a Catholic. I couldn't choose to believe, thank God. Wink
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dworkin's post
08-09-2016, 03:45 PM
RE: Science and Eden
(08-09-2016 03:02 PM)true scotsman Wrote:  It really is over before it gets started. Debate assumes there is an objective truth to reach but theism assumes a subjective universe. There's not even any basis for a debate.

ts,

I'm not sure that the theist cannot claim that "God exists" is a matter of objective truth. They might be wrong in this claim of course, but that is something else.

D.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2016, 04:06 PM (This post was last modified: 08-09-2016 04:27 PM by kim.)
RE: Science and Eden
Some just want the illusion to be real, while others are certain that it is.
Faith is certainty - absolute certainty.
Life doesn't get more secure than that.

Why you gonna mess with someone's security, you bastard atheist? Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: