Root of Christian/Atheism disagreement

[Jack]

So what's the root of the philosophical disagreement?

Short answer: the difference between thinking one's opinion is divinely inspired and thus cannot be questioned as opposed to accepting one's opinion to be conditional, fluid and not absolute.

I think the root of the problem is human ego (for lack of a better term).

There's certainly an element of that. Couple it with a lofty opinion of ones self and a lack of humility, then wrap it all in a humorless self-image and you have intransigent opposition.

[Winter wind]

Short answer: the difference between thinking one's opinion is divinely inspired and thus cannot be questioned as opposed to accepting one's opinion to be conditional, fluid and not absolute.

yet I'm Christian and take the later.
My opinion is conditional, fluid and not absolute.

[Voluntary]

This does not seem to be the case with the Christianity/Atheism argument. There have been between 100-1000+ threads (and growing) on this site about various angles of this topic, yet the issue is still brought up in a slightly different light, again and again. I presume that the two sides of the argument will likely point to a lack of virtue in the court of the opposing side of the debate, but hopefully some form of new insight can be drawn from this.

As an atheist, all I ask for is a testable definition of god based off of observation and evidence.

I really do not know what there is to argue. If someone can coherently define god based on evidence from the natural world, then provide a testable definition. Typically, god is conveniently hidden in the supernatural world filled of mysticism and out of reach of observable evidence.

I just want observable evidence.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: voluntary I just want observable evidence.

Doesn't that make you Agnostic?

Being Atheist means your sure God doesn't exist. Agnostic means you don't have the evidence to go either way.

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Winter wind Doesn't that make you Agnostic? Being Atheist means your sure God doesn't exist. Agnostic means you don't have the evidence to go either way.

I am a strong atheist. I don't have evidence that "agbjoyu" exists either. Perhaps one day we will have evidence for "agbjoyu", but until that day happens I will remain an atheist.

I am a strong atheist via non-cognitivism. To me "god" = "agbjoyu" =drivel.

If you look at human history, every idea of "god(s)" is based on human imagination to explain the unknown. The Abrahamic god is slightly different since it became a personal god to explain human nature and morality. An Abrahamic god is nothing but a self projection upon a vague concept.

For clarification purposes, I am a strong atheist. Agnosticism has been polluted. The original Latin definition is "without knowledge". The cult Gnostics polluted it further and stretched the definition into mysticism. Huxley then "re-invented" the word into a methodology. Today's watered down version, means, "I do not know".

Until proven otherwise, I know that every concept of gawd fails.

[Jack]

Being Atheist means your sure God doesn't exist.

One more time: atheism does not suppose to have evidence that gods do not exist. It is a position that maintains that gods, as defined by their followers, have not been shown to exist, that those who propose gods exist have not supported their contention with convincing evidence. We choose not to believe in something based on nothing more than what theists offer as a reason to believe in gods. In the face of the lack of reason to believe and with no evidence to support the notion that gods exist, we do not believe.

I don't say gods don't exist. Theists say they do. Until they can show evidence to support that, I see no reason to believe them.

[rez]

So what's the root of the philosophical disagreement?

Simple. They want their explanations taken seriously. Without the supernatural being real, they have no credibility and thus power.

another major factor is that they are philosophically shallow. There is no substance to their imagination. Turing your imagination into reality is the primary goal of the philosopher. Philosophers are explorers and investigators. We try to understand reality with facts, so we can make informed judgments and predictions.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind yet I'm Christian and take the later. My opinion is conditional, fluid and not absolute.

See, here you run the risk of feeling insulted when I say that that opinion precludes you from being a true Christian.


The path is narrow.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: MB See, here you run the risk of feeling insulted when I say that that opinion precludes you from being a true Christian. The path is narrow.

What's your definition of a Christian?

[Winter wind]

Quote by: voluntary Until proven otherwise, I know that every concept of gawd fails.

Without proof, how can you "know" anything?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Winter wind What's your definition of a Christian?

People who act as the bible instructs.

[Milton Bradley]

Let me attempt to sum up my understanding of what is required to be a "true" Christian.


First, understand that you can skip to the end of the book, and see how how the story ends. :) It appears that all organized religion is doomed in the Seven Letters to the Seven Churches, and only a select few will be judged worthy of gaining entrance to Heaven.


Additionally, it is my understanding that Jesus pretty much illustrated how one was to live if one wished to achieve eternal life, and I just don't see admitted Christains living that life, or making those same hard saccrifices. You were all instructed to take up the cross, and follow Him.


Sorry, but in my estimation, ( and I'm joined by many others ) the path is narrow, and the way difficult.


I say this after many years of study, and not out of disdain for the religion. ( I once called myself a Christian, until I was asked to defend my beliefs, and had to go to the bible for answers, only to find the answers did not satisfy my own requirements, let alone of those asking the questions. )

[Voluntary]

Quote by: Winter wind Without proof, how can you "know" anything?

About "god" or "absdfoy"? Same thing.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: Isherwood I don't say gods don't exist. Theists say they do. Until they can show evidence to support that, I see no reason to believe them.

correction. There are a couple of definitions for Atheism and Agnosticism. Don't believe me, check out the wikipedia site. Anyhoo, the kind I was talking about were the ones who would not make the a judgment until the facts were all in. Until then, they operate by the most logical alternative.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: MB People who act as the bible instructs.

I thought it was one who believed in the teachings of Christ...

Additionally, it is my understanding that Jesus pretty much illustrated how one was to live if one wished to achieve eternal life, and I just don't see admitted Christains living that life, or making those same hard saccrifices. You were all instructed to take up the cross, and follow Him.

Sure, but that has little to do with my view of the Bible...

Quote by: voluntary About "god" or "absdfoy"? Same thing.

haha ok fine.

Out of pure curiosity, how do you think the universe was created? I know not by God, but what law of the Universe created everything from non-existence?

[nerdvincent]

Quote by: Winter wind Out of pure curiosity, how do you think the universe was created? I know not by God, but what law of the Universe created everything from non-existence?

From another topic:
What was existing before God? A meta-god? If god doesn't need a creator, why do you obstinate to think that the universe needs a creator?

[Winter wind]

What was existing before God? A meta-god? If god doesn't need a creator, why do you obstinate to think that the universe needs a creator?

I'm not saying it needed one. However I do believe it had one. In absence of the scientific law proving this, I think it's more then possible that God created the universe. However, I recognize that's how all myths are born.

As for before God...I just think God is a force that always has been. He's like the concept of energy. Questioning what was the universe was like before energy is beyond me.

[Morality Games]

I think the root of the problem is human ego (for lack of a better term). A discussion on theistic v. atheistic world views seems to always devolve into a "You're stupid! No, you're stupid!" shouting match. It may be justified with appeals to different logical perspectives, but in the end, it comes down to the need to feel some sense of victory. The more insecure you are, the more you need to win. Some atheists insist on talking down to believers and some believers insist on claiming moral superiority. When two or three from each camp start snarling at each other, reasoned debate goes out the window and people start protecting their sense of self in ugly ways. The debate becomes a fight to protect the ego from being damaged. The theist "needs" to win because something so central to their self-perception can not be allowed to fall and the same can be said for the atheist. It gets there so fast because some people are less secure than others, but in the end, we all end up picking our side and entrenching.

To extend on your argument, if we're getting into the psychology of the matter, isn't wanting there to be a heavenly world waiting for you beyond this one a huge influence? And a hell for your enemies? And a perfect moral authority who 'takes care of his flock' through 'mysterious ways'? I would say the theist needs to win to maintain their "sense of balance" more than their pride.

You're right the same is true of atheists -- everyone wants to maintain their "sense of balance."

[wyoguy]

My oh my, how we do belabor a point of contention.

Atheistic view: Theists are hypocritical, gullible, and desperate losers that can't cope with life unless they have a "higher power" to fall back on.

Theistic view: Atheists are hopelessly mired in a web of denial and have placed their trust in pseudo-scientific theories that change on a daily basis.

If anyone here has reason why these two should not be bound together in the bonds of holy matrimony....

[Morality Games]

Quote by: wyoguy My oh my, how we do belabor a point of contention. Atheistic view: Theists are hypocritical, gullible, and desperate losers that can't cope with life unless they have a "higher power" to fall back on. Theistic view: Atheists are hopelessly mired in a web of denial and have placed their trust in pseudo-scientific theories that change on a daily basis. If anyone here has reason why these two should not be bound together in the bonds of holy matrimony....

"whispers to grandmother" This marriage isn't going to last.