Atheists and theists agree!

[liamconnor]

We disagree on a lot of things, right?


But this entire forum is founded on good argumentation, right?

That means this entire community is agreed on one basic premise: Reason. We are not saying we are all right. No. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. But we agree on some principle, no matter how we articulate, revise, expound it. Reason. Some of us might be wrong, though we think we are right. But we all agree, a contradiction is a contradiction.

This is a HUGE deal! Let us realize how privileged we are, when considering other civilizations past and present. The freedom (and education inculcating that freedom) to argue (and the education that gives us the tools to argue). Let us realize how united we are, in fact, compared to other civilizations, past and present.

Now, no, this was not just a panegyric on Reason. There is a practical application here.

Can we not, both theist and atheist and agnostic celebrate reason together and try, every once and while, when applicable, to defend an opposing party against a line of attack which, overall, agrees with his/her position, but which, nevertheless, he/she fines faulty?

I give an example and a pledge:

I am a Christian. Yet still, I find arguments for Christianity based on doctrines of "inerrancy" or "infallibility" or anything regarding the Old or New Testament as anything other than mere historical data, as fallacious for defending the resurrection of Jesus. Whenever I should meet such arguments, I will oppose them, with grace and kindness, but nonetheless, unambiguous disagreement. If a person defends the resurrection of Jesus because "look at all the Old Testament prophecies he fulfilled!" I will step in and say, "I appreciate your overall plan. But I disagree with this particular argument, and here is why..."

Can we not all, without cunning malice, without sarcasm, without some sidelong sneer, recognize a kind of argument which we find distasteful, even when it comes from our own party? And can we not publicly announce so, with grace and kindness?

I propose it would be a good habit, to once a month, try and find an argument ultimately in favor of your own position, but which you reject, and politely, constructively, gently, but publicly, correct.

Of course, such opportunities might not arise. The real point is to get us in such a habit.

Please, Please, PLEASE note. I intend no deception here. There is no trap. I am honestly proposing, we can, as a community, find a common ground (good argumentation) and defend that together, even against our own, should such times occur.




Am I off my rocker?

[Bust Nak]

Am I off my rocker?

No, come join us in rejecting, and correcting creationists in the Science and Religion sub board, maybe they are more willing to listen to theists.

[Divine Insight]

I think it's very important to first realize that a person may not be aware of what another person's actual position is.

For example, you entitled this thread, "Atheists and Theists Agree!".

However, are you already assuming what "Atheists" or "Theists" even are, or what positions they hold?

For example, on these forums my main position is simply the following:

I hold that the Biblical theology cannot possibly be true as it is written.

The reason I hold this to be the case is because it is my position that the Biblical stories contain self-contradictions that simply cannot be resolved as they are written. In fact, most theists seem to be in agreement with this and argue instead that the Bible should not be taken to mean what it literally says.

So theists actually support my position and agree with it.

The following also follows from my position:

The God described in the Bible cannot possibly be true as it is described in the Bible.

Once again, the only way around this is to seek extremely non-literal interpretations of the texts to avoid the obvious self-contradictions that are actually contained within the texts.

In other words, if we want to imagine a viable God we need to reject much of what the Bible actually has to say about God and instead invent our own imaginary God that isn't at all like the Bible actually describes.

As to your challenge:

I propose it would be a good habit, to once a month, try and find an argument ultimately in favor of your own position, but which you reject, and politely, constructively, gently, but publicly, correct.

Please note that my "position" is not that there is no God. I make no claims on that topic at all. In fact, as far as I can tell Zeus could actually exist because while he would be an utterly absurd God there's really nothing in Greek mythology that would prevent that from being the case.

The Biblical God, on the other hand, cannot be as righteous and trustworthy as the Bible claims whilst simultaneously being as unrighteous and untrustworthy as the Bible demands.

Now to you "challenge".

There are actually plenty of arguments that "support" my position that I personally reject.

For example, one popular argument often given by secular materialists is that the God of the Bible cannot exist because he does supernatural things that would naturally be impossible.

I reject those arguments as being foolish. Obviously, if an omnipotent magical God existed he could do supernatural things that cannot be explained using natural scientific explanations.

I cannot, and do not, reject the Bible because it has God magically cursing people, or parting waters, or appearing in a non-consuming burning bush, or creating medical plagues, or causing donkeys to talk, or flooding the planet, or raising the dead, etc.

As far as I'm concerned if an omnipotent supernatural God existed he could no doubt do all those things. So reject those kinds of arguments as being meaningless. They are also unnecessary.

The God of the Bible fails, not because a supernatural God cannot exist in general, (for all I know such a supernatural God could exist). The God of the Bible fails because he's supposed to be righteous, trustworthy, and intelligent, but according to the Biblical fables he's clearly none of those things. So he's self-contradictory in character.

Arguments that a "supernatural God" cannot exist might "support" my position that the Bible cannot be true as written, but they are totally unnecessary.

I'm also not sure that a "supernatural God" could be disproved in any case. This is why I cannot say for certain that Zeus does not exist. Zeus could exist and just be a totally undependable untrustworthy unintelligent maniac. I can't say that Zeus could not exist.

But clearly if the Biblical God is an undependable untrustworthy unintelligent maniac, this violates the character that he's supposed to have. So the Biblical God does not have the luxury of being any of those things.

So there are a lot of arguments against the Biblical God that would ultimately "support" my position, but many of them are simply superfluous.

Also, I have rejected those arguments many times on these forums. Arguing that the Bible cannot be true because dead bodies cannot be raised from the dead is, IMHO, a total waste of everyone's time.

If a supernatural God actually existed raising dead bodies would be a piece of cake.

That itself is not a problem.

However, having a supposedly righteous, trustworthy, intelligent God condemning people for merely not believing such stories is a HUGE PROBLEM, IMHO.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

We disagree on a lot of things, right?


But this entire forum is founded on good argumentation, right?

That means this entire community is agreed on one basic premise: Reason. We are not saying we are all right. No. Otherwise we wouldn't be arguing. But we agree on some principle, no matter how we articulate, revise, expound it. Reason. Some of us might be wrong, though we think we are right. But we all agree, a contradiction is a contradiction.

This is a HUGE deal! Let us realize how privileged we are, when considering other civilizations past and present. The freedom (and education inculcating that freedom) to argue (and the education that gives us the tools to argue). Let us realize how united we are, in fact, compared to other civilizations, past and present.

Now, no, this was not just a panegyric on Reason. There is a practical application here.

Can we not, both theist and atheist and agnostic celebrate reason together and try, every once and while, when applicable, to defend an opposing party against a line of attack which, overall, agrees with his/her position, but which, nevertheless, he/she fines faulty?

I give an example and a pledge:

I am a Christian. Yet still, I find arguments for Christianity based on doctrines of "inerrancy" or "infallibility" or anything regarding the Old or New Testament as anything other than mere historical data, as fallacious for defending the resurrection of Jesus. Whenever I should meet such arguments, I will oppose them, with grace and kindness, but nonetheless, unambiguous disagreement. If a person defends the resurrection of Jesus because "look at all the Old Testament prophecies he fulfilled!" I will step in and say, "I appreciate your overall plan. But I disagree with this particular argument, and here is why..."

Can we not all, without cunning malice, without sarcasm, without some sidelong sneer, recognize a kind of argument which we find distasteful, even when it comes from our own party? And can we not publicly announce so, with grace and kindness?

I propose it would be a good habit, to once a month, try and find an argument ultimately in favor of your own position, but which you reject, and politely, constructively, gently, but publicly, correct.

Of course, such opportunities might not arise. The real point is to get us in such a habit.

Please, Please, PLEASE note. I intend no deception here. There is no trap. I am honestly proposing, we can, as a community, find a common ground (good argumentation) and defend that together, even against our own, should such times occur.




Am I off my rocker?

Religion and superstition are ignorance, and ignorance needs to be recognized, overcome, and put behind us. Find the common ground, and I will consider it.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

For example, on these forums my main position is simply the following:

I hold that the Biblical theology cannot possibly be true as it is written.

Should we create a new user-group for that? What should it be called? Anti-bible-ist? Anti-inerrant-ist?
Thoughts?

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 3 by Divine Insight]

For example, on these forums my main position is simply the following:

I hold that the Biblical theology cannot possibly be true as it is written.

Should we create a new user-group for that? What should it be called? Anti-bible-ist? Anti-inerrant-ist?
Thoughts?

I'm not into labeling people. However, the topic would probably be best described by "Self-contradictory Theologies".

The entire Abrahamic (i.e. Biblical or Qur'an) narrative of an egotistical jealous God who is supposedly all-righteous, all-intelligent, and trustworthy is a self-contradictory narrative. Especially considering that he's chomping at the bit to cast anyone into an eternal hell fire who doesn't bow down and worship him.

The Christian "New Testament" is simply a spin-off from an already self-contradictory collection of tales. It also contains its own new set of self-contradictions in any case.

I'm not sure how you would label a person who recognizes the self-contradictions of Biblical theology?

How about "Rational Thinker"?

I just looked through the user groups and didn't find that one. What a surprise!

Shouldn't we have a user group named "Rational Thinker"?

The only problem is that people who think irrationally would probably join it too irrationally thinking that they are rational thinkers.