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....

[olavisjo]

You seem to be not understanding what is being said, and you are changing the topic. I am objecting to your misrepresenting what people are saying.

My objecting to your misrepresenting what people are saying is not saying what I think one way or another. Do you understand the difference?

And, I am also baffled on how 'meaning' to life is related to 'is faith or doubt' more reasonable. You fail to make a case that 'not believing in god means there is no meaning' or fail to make the case 'believing in god gives life meaning'.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting what people are saying, but I agree with you that I am not understanding what is being said. If a person makes an ambiguous statement, I will try to rephrase it so that it will be less ambiguous.
As for the meaning of life, I just used that as an example of something that even most Atheists believe in, by faith, even though it is not reasonable or rational to believe in since there is no evidence that life has any meaning, other than it just appears to have some meaning.
In mathematics any operation done to a random number produces a random number. In the same way, if the universe was caused by a random event, then every event from then to the present would be random and no meaning would ever evolve, but since we can all see meaning in our lives we can conclude that life was not caused by a random event.

For example life has purpose, we have a moral obligation to be good, we should love our enemies etc.

You accept these as true without evidence? I don't.

1. Life has purpose. What do you mean by purpose? That life has some cosmic or eternal significance?
2. We have a moral obligation to be good. A bit of a tautology there. Isn't being good the very definition of a moral obligation?
3. We should love our enemies. This is a self-evident truth?

1. Life has purpose, it does not simply follow the law of cause and effect. It is not random.

2. We have a, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, obligation to be good.

3. It may not be self evident to all that we should love our enemies, but no rational evidence will ever get you there.

[Goat]

You seem to be not understanding what is being said, and you are changing the topic. I am objecting to your misrepresenting what people are saying.

My objecting to your misrepresenting what people are saying is not saying what I think one way or another. Do you understand the difference?

And, I am also baffled on how 'meaning' to life is related to 'is faith or doubt' more reasonable. You fail to make a case that 'not believing in god means there is no meaning' or fail to make the case 'believing in god gives life meaning'.

I am not intentionally misrepresenting what people are saying, but I agree with you that I am not understanding what is being said. If a person makes an ambiguous statement, I will try to rephrase it so that it will be less ambiguous.
As for the meaning of life, I just used that as an example of something that even most Atheists believe in, by faith, even though it is not reasonable or rational to believe in since there is no evidence that life has any meaning, other than it just appears to have some meaning.
In mathematics any operation done to a random number produces a random number. In the same way, if the universe was caused by a random event, then every event from then to the present would be random and no meaning would ever evolve, but since we can all see meaning in our lives we can conclude that life was not caused by a random event.

For example life has purpose, we have a moral obligation to be good, we should love our enemies etc.

You accept these as true without evidence? I don't.

1. Life has purpose. What do you mean by purpose? That life has some cosmic or eternal significance?
2. We have a moral obligation to be good. A bit of a tautology there. Isn't being good the very definition of a moral obligation?
3. We should love our enemies. This is a self-evident truth?

1. Life has purpose, it does not simply follow the law of cause and effect. It is not random.

Please prove that 1) Life does have a purpose. 2) This purpose come from outside itself. 3) that 'cause and effect' are random.

Life follows RV+NS and chemistry. That is not random. However, it does not need a 'purpose'.

2. We have a, relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior, obligation to be good.

It is in out best interests to have a moral behavior. However, this is a relative proposition. What is right and wrong is very subjective.

3. It may not be self evident to all that we should love our enemies, but no rational evidence will ever get you there.

"Get you there"? Where is there? Why should we want to 'go there'?

[Flail]

Cnorman

If I were forced to select a religion, I would pick Judaism over the others....I might not get into all the rituals however.

[olavisjo]

For example life has purpose, we have a moral obligation to be good, we should love our enemies etc.

You accept these as true without evidence? I don't.

1. Life has purpose. What do you mean by purpose? That life has some cosmic or eternal significance?
2. We have a moral obligation to be good. A bit of a tautology there. Isn't being good the very definition of a moral obligation?
3. We should love our enemies. This is a self-evident truth?

1. Life has purpose, it does not simply follow the law of cause and effect. It is not random.

Please prove that 1) Life does have a purpose. 2) This purpose come from outside itself. 3) that 'cause and effect' are random.

I said (post 46) "There are a lot things that I can assert as true without any evidence, because denying them does not make any sense. For example life has purpose, we have a moral obligation to be good, we should love our enemies etc".
So why would you ask me to prove something that I already said I have no evidence for? The idea that life does not have any purpose does not make sense to me, so I just accept that there is purpose in life.
Purpose is what a maker gives to the object being made. An engineer will give purpose to metal, plastic, rubber etc by building a car, and that purpose is transportation. God will create people with the purpose of relating to him and each other.
A random cause can only create a random effect. An outcome with purpose can only happen when the cause had purpose.

3. It may not be self evident to all that we should love our enemies, but no rational evidence will ever get you there.

"Get you there"? Where is there? Why should we want to 'go there'?

The 'there' is when we learn to love our enemies. We want to be there because it is the only rational way to treat our enemies.

[cnorman18]

Cnorman

If I were forced to select a religion, I would pick Judaism over the others....I might not get into all the rituals however.

I'm not a big fan of that part myself. I rarely go to services. Unlike Christianity, the center of the practice of Judaism is the home, not the synagogue.

I think the only "rituals" I've participated in were the ones required for conversion - Milah and Mikvah, circumcision and ritual bath. Well, there's the Passover meal every year, but that's more remembrance and commemoration than ritual.

I guess it all is. "Ritual" isn't the same thing in Judaism as in Christianity, anyway. It's not magical or supernatural, it's just the continuation of the tradition, sort of a participation in history. Nobody gets "saved" or "born again" or like that. We just remember our past and our ancestors.

Thanks, Flail. I appreciate those words. I still wouldn't recommend Judaism to anybody, though. Theologically speaking, it's all about freedom of thought and individual responsibility, and that's great - but we've got historical and cultural baggage out the wazoo.

Charles

[Zzyzx]

.

I said (post 46) "There are a lot things that I can assert as true without any evidence, because denying them does not make any sense.

Assertions without evidence are NOT appropriate in ethical and honorable DEBATE. They may be appropriate in Holy Huddle or TD&D sub-forums, in church sermons, or in gatherings of fellow believers.

For example life has purpose, we have a moral obligation to be good, we should love our enemies etc".

Conjectures and opinions should be identified as such and not stated as fact.

So why would you ask me to prove something that I already said I have no evidence for?

If you state something as fact rather than opinion you are expected to substantiate what you say " see Forum Rules and Guidelines.

The idea that life does not have any purpose does not make sense to me, so I just accept that there is purpose in life.

What makes sense to you is immaterial in debate. What you can substantiate is material.

Purpose is what a maker gives to the object being made. An engineer will give purpose to metal, plastic, rubber etc by building a car, and that purpose is transportation.

Agreed

God will create people with the purpose of relating to him and each other.

Disagree. There is no evidence that a "god" (or fairy or leprechaun) created people or gave them purpose. That is a matter of personal opinion and conjecture.

A random cause can only create a random effect. An outcome with purpose can only happen when the cause had purpose.

Demonstrate "purpose" as applied to humans " without using conjecture, opinion or religious promotional literature.

3. It may not be self evident to all that we should love our enemies, but no rational evidence will ever get you there.

"Get you there"? Where is there? Why should we want to 'go there'?

The 'there' is when we learn to love our enemies. We want to be there because it is the only rational way to treat our enemies.

That is a matter of opinion ONLY. You cannot demonstrate that the statement is truthful, accurate or generally applicable. It carries no weight in debate.

[cnorman18]

Just to drop in a word regarding the other debate here - Judaism absolutely does teach that human life has a purpose; it is Tikkun Olam, the "Repair of the World," roughly, making this world a better place for ALL people, not just Jews.

How to do that, specifically, though - well, that's up to the individual to figure out for himself. Nobody has a "Divine Mission," e.g., to make everyone convert to Judaism (that's actually frowned on in the tradition).

It's like this:

Do good.

How?

You have a brain. Figure it out.

ETA: By the way, "love your enemies" is NOT a Jewish teaching.

From the Talmud: "If you know that a man is on his way to kill you, rise up and go and meet him on the way - and kill him first."

Like I said; use your brain. If Jews loved their enemies, we'd all be dead by now. We seem to have had more enemies than most over the millenia. We still do.

Like the Constitution, religion is not a suicide pact.

[Flail]

Is ritualism reasonable....I mean yesterday for Ash Wednseday there were people everywhere...on the street and on television with crosses of carbon on their forheads.....grown adults acting like sheep....or worse.....I don't think using your mind has anything to do with smearing magical substances on your head or eating God or handling beads or attending the biggest tax exempt church in town....silly and dangerous.

[Cephus]

As I read it, Cephus has labeled cnorman18 delusional and irrational because he is entertaining ideas for which there is no evidence. I am just saying that there are ideas worth entertaining that do not have any evidence for their existence. Where would science be today if it did not entertain ideas which had no evidence. All advancements in knowledge begin with a creative imagination.

Actually, I've never labeled anyone, most certainly not cnorman18 specifically, insane, which is what he seems to be taking offense to. I've labeled religious belief insane and he's choosing to apply that label to himself, then using it as a strawman.

You are right to some small degree, many advancements in science come by thinking outside of the box. However, there is a big difference between thinking outside of the box and demanding your ideas are factually true and valid without a shred of evidence to support them. There's a big difference between saying "hey, maybe this is true" and then going off to find out if it is, in fact, true, and saying "hey, maybe this is true and therefore, because I think it might be true, I'm simply going to demand that it must be."

Theists, however, do not do the former, they don't hypothesize the existence of a deity, then go out and find out if their hypothesis is factually true, they simply imagine a god and demand it must be real with absolutely zero objective evidence to support it.

That is, in fact, the whole point of the argument. For virtually any other belief we might imagine, be it unicorns or aliens or anything of the sort, simply imagining something, then demanding it must be true without any good rational reason is, by definition, irrational. I would argue that it is functionally insane, although not in the pejorative sense that cnorman18 seems to be insisting. Simply demanding that things are factually true because you want them to be true and not because you have any reason to think they actually are true is a mentally unhealthy way to view the world. That's true no matter what you're talking about, be it unicorns or ghosts or demons or reptilian aliens taking over the government, it's also true of gods. However, theists are desperately trying to argue that gods deserve a special category and special consideration, yet offer no rational reason why. All cnorman18 has been able to offer is something we both agree is a logical fallacy.

Therefore, if it is insane to believe in the factual existence of unicorns, it is equally insane to believe in the factual existence of gods. You don't get to make exceptions simply because you don't like to get tarred with the same brush.

[Cephus]

1. Life has purpose. What do you mean by purpose? That life has some cosmic or eternal significance?

Exactly. It starts off by demanding that life has a purpose, then they modify that to tell you exactly what that purpose is, without a shred of evidence that their interpretation is factually correct. In fact, I think we all agree that life has a purpose, it just comes from within, not without.

2. We have a moral obligation to be good. A bit of a tautology there. Isn't being good the very definition of a moral obligation?

It's also a bit of a bizarre statement by Christians who claim that God's morality never changes, when you look in the Bible and find commandments to keep slaves, rape innocent women, murder children, etc. Sure, you find Christians making excuses for God, but it God is supposed to be so consistent, why don't we see Christians out keeping slaves today? God said so, he spelled out how to do it, how to treat them, how much to pay for them, how to con people into being your slave for life, how to mark them, etc.

3. We should love our enemies. This is a self-evident truth?

That's actually a very bad idea most of the time. You know, I don't see Israel loving their enemies all that much, nor necessarily should they. Yet more bad advice from the Bible.