Quote:
Originally Posted by Luminous  I would be up for that, I've been trying to follow the arguements, but find myself quite confused at whats being argued. Having just jumped in though, perhaps I'll just throw in my thoughts on the matter.
I think as people that actively seek out truth, we instinctively are reluctant to leave an empty space blank on a test. When we are sick, we want to know what we have, and why. Such it is, that when faced with the concept of death, we want to know what lies beyond. But we can't ever really know while we're alive can we? But it's an empty space on the test, so I think we still feel the need to fill it in, I think it makes us feel better. It doesn't matter how true it is, as long as we think "Hmm...that's definately a possibility", we'll be less irked about that unknown area. Even most Atheists follow this I think with the line of thinking that after death, who cares, we won't exist anymore to think about it! Epicurus said it best with regards to that I think.
Either way, the desired end result is the same. We stop worrying about death, and happily frollick about living our lives. While one could see some religious people as delusional, belief is one area where you're allowed to be naive, because there is no way to prove you wrong. It's an area where it ultimately doesn't matter. We still live the same way, we still die the same way, that is, happy, and reassured. Rinse, wash, repeat. The cycle continues.
I think the concept of Russel's Teapot adequatly shows that religions are for the most part guesswork that are equally possible of being right and being wrong. Again, that doesn't matter, as long as its true to you as a person, religion is serving its purpose of filling in that blank. Who knows, maybe one of us will end up being right someday.
And so ends my Atheistic pondering aloud, I apologize for the minor essay length, and hopefully I don't sound like a crazy person. |
It's good to hear that you're willing to stay awhile and sort this out. But let's start at the very beginning, shall we? This should make what we're to debate easier to understand.
OK, you've decided to take the atheistic stance, and I've decided to take the theistic stance. Here are our givens:
1) It is generally agreed upon that
religion is a kind of belief, albeit a more organized, systematic one replete with doctrines and dogmas and practices -- but still a belief, nonetheless.
2) Also,
a belief must be a belief in something. And in the case of religion, it's a higher being (or beings) whose name may vary from religion to religion. But to make our lives a bit easier, let's refer to that higher being as "God."
3) In addition, LichGRIFFIN and I learned after a private exchange that
we believe in something because it is really true, or at least probably true. We do not believe in something because it is merely "convenient" to do so; neither do we hold to be true something that is "useful", yet false (lies can be useful, right?).
Therefore:
A) If God exists, then religion -- or at least the part of it that professes the existence of God -- must be true.
B) If God does not exist, then religion cannot be true.
So, Luminous -- if you could disprove the existence of God rationally or by presenting cold, hard evidence that immediately proves that premise, leaving no loopholes for religious types to argue out of, you and your fellow atheists will have single-handedly won the debate. So would you choose to hack at leaves and twigs -- that is, the relatively smaller issues, nowhere getting nearer to any conclusion, or would you rather hack at the problem's root instead -- that is, the existence of God?