Which is most reasonable....belief or doubt?

[Flail]

The question for debate is :

Of the polar extremes of Atheism vs Theism, which is most reasonable and rational?

For purpose of this debate we define Atheism as: "Having no evidence of God, I do not believe in any God"....and we define Theism as: "I believe in a particular God based upon an existing faith or belief system which I have accepted to be absolutely and infallibly true."

Atheists as well as agnostics typically leave the 'door open' to a greater or lesser extent,by accepting the possibility,however remote,of a Supreme Creative force or God....but they await proofs...evidence...some rational or logical verification beyond simply adopting the dogma or belief system of their particular tribe......

Theists,on the other hand, permit no other possibility but the one they have chosen to adopt....if they are Christian,then the God and dogma of Christianity is the only possible truth....it they are Muslim,then the God and dogma of Islam is the only possible truth....Theists offer no option for human error in making a 'God choice.'...whereas Atheists and Agnostics are open to all possibilities as they reason,debate,doubt and await evidence.

IMO, the atheistic or agnostic positon is more reasonable,honest and rational....and if there is a 'God of reason'....would be most pleasing to Him....if there is a 'God of Dogma'...many are doomed by the mere happenstance of birth and a bad guess...to some eternal damnation....

[Cephus]

In my opinion, rudeness, disrespect and open contempt are not appropriate in debate. Ever. That is appropriate for a bar fight. not a supposedly intellectually oriented forum that is actually billed as "civil and respectful."

You're the one who is interpreting everything as an insult. You're not a moderator, if Osteng interprets what I'm saying as uncivil or disrespectful, I'm sure he'll let me know.

Let's be honest, you are CHOOSING to take offense to general statements which were never specifically aimed at you in the first place. You're welcome to do that if you want, I guess, but the righteous indignation route is really pretty passe. How about instead of getting mad that I'm daring to call a spade a spade, you actually demonstrate that I'm wrong.

Oh wait, you can't. Gotcha.

Actually respecting someone as a matter of private and personal opinion is not the same as behaving respectfully in debate. One is not required to openly display everything one may feel about an opponent. Personal judgments, even when based on ideas perceived as defective, are properly kept to oneself. That is because one is debating one's opponent's ideas and not his personality or character.

Cool deal, that's exactly what's happened here. I've never specifically said that any INDIVIDUAL is insane, in fact I've never mentioned anyone by name as a target of insanity charges. I've said that the IDEAS some hold are insane and you've gone off ranting about it. I've pointed out that there isn't a demonstrable difference between those ideas and other ideas that most of us would agree are insane, therefore there isn't a reason to differentiate between them. You've disagree, offered a logical fallacy to explain why you think religion deserves special treatment, but beyond that, you haven't been able to refute my ideas.

So religious people should properly be derided and sneered at and insulted till they prove their beliefs objectively true?

If they are going to insist that their beliefs are objectively true, of course. So should holocaust deniers. So should people who believe in ghosts. So should ANYONE who makes a fact claim about reality and cannot back it up.

An interesting position. Suffice it to say that we disagree.

Of course you do, you hold the position that you cannot back your beliefs up, how could you say anything else? But we get back to the substitution problem, if you substitute other ideas for God, how do those substantively differ from your claim?

I believe Santa Claus is real, but I don't think you can ever find evidence to prove it.
I believe unicorns are real, but I don't think you can ever find evidence to prove it.
I believe I'm Napoleon, but I don't think you can ever find evidence to prove it.

Where's the substantive difference, other than you personally hold one of the beliefs and not the others?

If that's the case, I disagree, and as far as I'm concerned we can leave it at that.

I'm hardly surprised you're running away yet again, it happens every time you get backed into a corner. Once again, I'll point out that in the many, many debates we've had, I've never once been the one to head for the door.

[cnorman18]

I have reported your post, and I will here publicly state why: I don't think advocating insults and expressions of open contempt is in the spirit of this forum.

So religious people should properly be derided and sneered at and insulted till they prove their beliefs objectively true?

If they are going to insist that their beliefs are objectively true, of course.

And, of course, you have insisted on the record that ALL claims of belief must be claims of objective truth or else not be claims of "belief" at all.

And now for this:

I'm hardly surprised you're running away yet again, it happens every time you get backed into a corner. Once again, I'll point out that in the many, many debates we've had, I've never once been the one to head for the door.

That is a simple falsehood.

On the "Judaism debate, continued" thread, my last post was #42, followed by #43 from Ayah5768.

You replied to neither, failing to respond at all to various statements of mine - inluding several about your debating tactics, and others which proved that you made false statements of fact about several matters, including the contents of your own previous posts.

Unlike you, I did not trouble to post a victory dance. Your failure to answer spoke for itself, and still does.

I would also note that, while you do not often directly retire from a debate, you DO rather often ignore and fail to respond to statements and questions - and continue to ignore them even after that has been pointed out. I decline to speculate on your reasons, but your usual claims (when you bother to address the issue at all) that they are not worthy of response and the like seem a bit thin.

In short, you are much better at ignoring and distorting arguments and declaring victory than you are at actually demonstrating it.

The list of such omissions would be a very long one from this thread alone, so here are just the ones from my last post:

False analogy again. Avoiding offensive insults and open contempt is not the same as "handling with kid gloves." One may emphatically and vehemently disagree with an idea, and still remain civil and respectful. Look around. It's done here all the time, and is more the rule than the exception.

Don't pretend I'm asking for deference or kowtowing. THAT is absolutely a strawman, and you have tried to use it before.

....

I have corrected your misrepresentations and distortions any number of times. You nevertheless repeat them, to the point of drawing a moderator's warning on it.

Every time you say "You're just trying to..." or "You just want to..." - you are alleging intentions and motivations that you cannot know and have no right to claim. You have been corrected on that practice many times, and you did it again in your last post. Don't claim you're open to being corrected when you clearly aren't.

.....

You are clearly trying to have it both ways; "I DO think that all theists, including you, are actually insane, but you can't claim that I ever said so."

If you don't mean to say that religious belief = insanity, why do you keep insisting that there is no difference between them? If you DO mean to say that, why do you deny that you have ever said it?

What possible point can there be to declaring that equivalence other than to provoke anger and express disrespect and contempt? If your point is "religious belief is irrational" - well, isn't that a better and less provocative way to say it?

....

I deny that anything I have said here is a strawman, and I challenge you to show me anything that is.

Gnomes, on the other hand, unquestionably ARE strawmen by definition. Look it up; arguing against a belief that your opponent does not actually hold.

All deleted and ignored.

How do you define "running away'?

I would agree that this last seems to have been answered, though:

I asked, straight out, if it's OK to insult people because you disagree with them. The only answer from you that I can discern here is "Yes, it absolutely is."

Don't assume that because I grow tired of your clearly implied sneers and insults, your putting words in my mouth, your ignoring my points, and your substituting your own arguments for mine, that I am "running away." Perhaps I am just tired of unethical, intellectually disingenuous, and contemptuous behavior.

In any case, I don't think your smug claims of victory and superior debating skills are warranted - and the record shows that the moderators don't, either.

[Nilloc James]

Psst...

You are debating eachother instead of the topic...

[cnorman18]

Psst...

You are debating eachother instead of the topic...

I concede that you have a point there. Cephus has never challenged my thinking, only my patience.

I find it difficult to let blatantly rude and hostile behavior pass without comment. I suppose it's my background as a middle-school teacher.

Intelligent adults should know better.

[Fallibleone]

Moderator note: both sides please only include those parts of your replies which tackle the question, and omit those which criticise the person. Making judgements about other members' motives or attitudes is not condusive to the aim of this board. Although I understand it can be difficult to do so, please try to refrain from responding to off-topic comments with more. Simply report and continue with the debate if you still wish to. Thank you.

Let's be honest, you are CHOOSING to take offense to general statements which were never specifically aimed at you in the first place. You're welcome to do that if you want, I guess, but the righteous indignation route is really pretty passe. How about instead of getting mad that I'm daring to call a spade a spade, you actually demonstrate that I'm wrong.

Oh wait, you can't. Gotcha.

I'm hardly surprised you're running away yet again, it happens every time you get backed into a corner.

In short, you are much better at ignoring and distorting arguments and declaring victory than you are at actually demonstrating it.

Intelligent adults should know better.

[Cephus]

Moderator note: both sides please only include those parts of your replies which tackle the question, and omit those which criticise the person. Making judgements about other members' motives or attitudes is not condusive to the aim of this board. Although I understand it can be difficult to do so, please try to refrain from responding to off-topic comments with more. Simply report and continue with the debate if you still wish to. Thank you.

Since he's already quit, I'm just sitting here waiting for something substantive to respond to, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

No surprises there.

[cnorman18]

Moderator note: both sides please only include those parts of your replies which tackle the question, and omit those which criticise the person. Making judgements about other members' motives or attitudes is not condusive to the aim of this board. Although I understand it can be difficult to do so, please try to refrain from responding to off-topic comments with more. Simply report and continue with the debate if you still wish to. Thank you.

Since he's already quit, I'm just sitting here waiting for something substantive to respond to, which doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

No surprises there.

(Sorry, Fallibleone, but as I said, I find it very hard to let falsehoods and gibes go unanswered - and to be honest, I don't see why I should. Seems to me the attacker ought to held responsible for misbehavior, not the defender.)

I see no response to post 62, and I regard the claim of "nothing substantive" as a fatuous fig leaf and just another example of your frequent failures to respond to my posts.

From where I sit, it looks like YOU'VE quit.

Again.

I decline to add a gratuitous sneer about whether or not this behavior is surprising. That's your style, not mine.

(I shall now try to respond to argument and debate; but do not ask me to accept insults, sneers, claims of victory based on ducking arguments, and straight-up falsehoods without comment when the moderators won't address them. That ought not be a requirement of membership here, and I don't think it is.)

[Fallibleone]

Moderator comment: Cephus, I'm sure you're aware by now that responding to moderator interventions within the thread is against the rules. You are simply posting more off-topic material. You could be sitting there eating jellied eels - we don't need to hear about it.

[micatala]

Moderator comment: Cephus, I'm sure you're aware by now that responding to moderator interventions within the thread is against the rules. You are simply posting more off-topic material. You could be sitting there eating jellied eels - we don't need to hear about it.

Additional moderator warning.

Let me echo what Fallibleone has said.

Cephus' response to the moderator warning is clearly against the rules.


I am locking the thread while the moderators discuss the situation further.