Thread Started...

Status
Not open for further replies.
c0de

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I believe Mr. Inuk has something he wants to state...


The floor is yours
 
Don't flatter yourself... did you think I actually expected you to say anything?

The only reason I started this thread was to expose your reluctance.
 
Alex P said:
What is this? Chopped liver?
Click to expand...


Mr. Inuk thought he had something to say about the stupidity of Islam and the enlightened views of atheism... I was merely giving him the opportunity to state his concerns in full...

I guess he is... reconsidering...
 
It's interesting to note that the debate between the theist and the atheist has never had a clear winner, though both sides often claim victory. Where does that leave us? Just for once I would like to see a dialogue that actually became a genuine enquiry into the nature of reality that contained the insights of both camps. An enquiry that honestly strives to transcend simple debate and head toward higher ground.

I think also that it would take people of high caliber to participate because being willing to modify ones cherished beliefs takes courage, the kind Paul Tillich wrote about.

In order for this to come about the basic premise would have to include the possibility of there being a reality that includes but goes beyond the rational. This for the theist means validating the rational as a stepping stone toward a greater understanding (Thomas is quite good at this) and the atheist accepts the possibility of the rational not being the end of all things, that post rational experience may not just be an anomaly in brain chemistry.

Is this a possibility or just wistful thinking?
 
From c0de:
....this almost slipped under my radar...

Quote:
Originally Posted by inuk
In Islam the concept is tackled as a personal struggle, or Jihad. Or this is what your local Imam will tell you on seeking his advice. Rather than just give the command to cease thinking down the road of doubt it is transformed into an obstacle to be beaten. It is a clever device. It teaches the mind to not view doubt as a valid tool of human cognition but as an enemy to be overcome. Islam is a good example in this case as it does not even attempt to disguise what it is doing.

You're implying that Islam blinds one to reality by evoking an unquestioning obedience... rite? Well, tell me Einstein, what supposed openness of mind, makes the blind atheist superior to a Muslim?

In fact, before you even get to that point, please explain how your views (based in doubt) are any more "rational" then the views of one who has defeated doubt and works from a system of faith?

I assure you, not one atheist I have ever come across has ever successfully defended his positions from fallacies in logic and gross misunderstandings of the very knowledge they (allegedly) base their whole system of belief on: science. If you want to give it a shot, be my guest.


p.s. I suggest you start another thread, I'd rather not disturb the soul-searching that is happening here.
Click to expand...
and...

Quote:
Originally Posted by inuk
Feel free to start another thread. But may I suggest we swap roles. You try and guess what I would say, and I will try and guess what you will say?

I don't need to guess, I already know what you are going to say.

And if you want me to take the initiative, I shall oblige.
Click to expand...
I not only think the onus on you to start you already stated that you would. So why dont you get on with it instead of presuming to speak and think for me, something you evidently cannot do. Or are we simply to return to you stalking me round threads looking for a fight?
 
Paladin said:
It's interesting to note that the debate between the theist and the atheist has never had a clear winner, though both sides often claim victory. Where does that leave us? Just for once I would like to see a dialogue that actually became a genuine enquiry into the nature of reality that contained the insights of both camps. An enquiry that honestly strives to transcend simple debate and head toward higher ground.

I think also that it would take people of high caliber to participate because being willing to modify ones cherished beliefs takes courage, the kind Paul Tillich wrote about.

In order for this to come about the basic premise would have to include the possibility of there being a reality that includes but goes beyond the rational. This for the theist means validating the rational as a stepping stone toward a greater understanding (Thomas is quite good at this) and the atheist accepts the possibility of the rational not being the end of all things, that post rational experience may not just be an anomaly in brain chemistry.

Is this a possibility or just wistful thinking?
Click to expand...

I hope not. My atheism is born of being unable to reconcile what I have observed through the limited faculties of my intellect with the many stated paradigms that are meant to explain spiritual experience. Further such claims have, as far as I am able to discern, never produced an iota of hard evidence to support them as being anything more than human inventions. I do require evidence to begin to support any idea. But not for one moment will I ever think I know what the ultimate nature of reality is, if indeed it has one.
 
Paladin said:
It's interesting to note that the debate between the theist and the atheist has never had a clear winner, though both sides often claim victory....I think also that it would take people of high caliber to participate because being willing to modify ones cherished beliefs takes courage, the kind Paul Tillich wrote about....Is this a possibility or just wistful thinking?
Click to expand...
The opening of Lyceum last year was this very debate/discussion. It had quite a few people in the audience wiggling in their seats. It was Rev. Paul Hasselbeck and Bart Ehrman and I guess your are correct there was no clear winner, but I don't think either side thinks they won, I think they would have preferred to stay on stage another few days....
 
@ Inuk

I already stated my view in my first response to you:

what supposed openness of mind, makes the blind atheist superior to a Muslim?
Click to expand...

I asked you to state how you think you're view is any less "blind" then mine. The fact is ultimately your working from a set of assumptions just like a Muslim. So your system is also based on faith. You are no better or worse then any believer. So all your rhetoric is at the end of the day, meaningless.
 
You're implying that Islam blinds one to reality by evoking an unquestioning obedience... rite?
Click to expand...
No, I am stating it not implying it.
Well, tell me Einstein, what supposed openness of mind, makes the blind atheist superior to a Muslim?
Click to expand...
Superior? I sense a surfeit of ego here. Why is the atheist blind? Because he takes his worldview from many sources and not a single doctrine of extremely dubious origin and purpose? Because he thinks the human intellect incapable of certainty given the lack of conclusive verifiable evidence? I really do not understand, why is the atheist "blind". Tell me.

In fact, before you even get to that point, please explain how your views (based in doubt) are any more "rational" then the views of one who has defeated doubt and works from a system of faith?
Click to expand...
Because doubt is a realistic, rational and practical tool that produces results time after time.

I assure you, not one atheist I have ever come across has ever successfully defended his positions from fallacies in logic and gross misunderstandings of the very knowledge they (allegedly) base their whole system of belief on: science. If you want to give it a shot, be my guest.
Click to expand...
I fear this says more about you than the atheists you have talked to.
 
wil said:
The opening of Lyceum last year was this very debate/discussion. It had quite a few people in the audience wiggling in their seats. It was Rev. Paul Hasselbeck and Bart Ehrman and I guess your are correct there was no clear winner, but I don't think either side thinks they won, I think they would have preferred to stay on stage another few days....
Click to expand...

touche!!

The debate will never be over as long as there are minds to ponder the questions.
 
inuk said:
I hope not. My atheism is born of being unable to reconcile what I have observed through the limited faculties of my intellect with the many stated paradigms that are meant to explain spiritual experience. Further such claims have, as far as I am able to discern, never produced an iota of hard evidence to support them as being anything more than human inventions. I do require evidence to begin to support any idea. But not for one moment will I ever think I know what the ultimate nature of reality is, if indeed it has one.
Click to expand...

I empathize with your point of view here. What kinds of evidence would suffice to provide the basis for further enquiry? It would seem artifacts would be in short supply in this type of endeavor, and stories of human experiences would seem merely anecdotal. Perhaps observation of behaviors and correlation of similar experiences over a broad range of cultures and demographic groups?

But here I go hijacking a thread, sorry Code!
 
wil said:
The opening of Lyceum last year was this very debate/discussion. It had quite a few people in the audience wiggling in their seats. It was Rev. Paul Hasselbeck and Bart Ehrman and I guess your are correct there was no clear winner, but I don't think either side thinks they won, I think they would have preferred to stay on stage another few days....
Click to expand...

The irony of all this is that if there is a clear winner something is inevitably lost.
 
Paladin said:
It's interesting to note that the debate between the theist and the atheist has never had a clear winner, though both sides often claim victory. Where does that leave us? Just for once I would like to see a dialogue that actually became a genuine enquiry into the nature of reality that contained the insights of both camps. An enquiry that honestly strives to transcend simple debate and head toward higher ground.
Click to expand...
I had no idea you were such an idealist, Paladin. :)

In all three Abrahamic religions G-d is considered unknowable. On that basis, what would you expect as a realistic outcome for such a debate?

At the risk of oversimplifying the situation, I think the debate is tantamount to pitting unknowability (a faith view) against nonverifiability (an atheist view). In other words, it would at best end up being a discussion of epistemology, wouldn't it? Something like "Woohoo, my epistemology is better than yours."

I think also that it would take people of high caliber to participate because being willing to modify ones cherished beliefs takes courage, the kind Paul Tillich wrote about.
Click to expand...
It also takes a certain amount of courage to live out of the beliefs you already have. This is why faith is no much more than intellectual assent. The notion of "leap of faith" gets at this courage aspect.

A quick comment: To affirm church dogma when Revelation clearly contradicts it is not rational. It's merely authoritarian. Likewise, affirming the merits of science without recognizing the limitations of the scientific method and scientific knowledge in general is not rational. It's just naive. As John Henry Newman put it, "The ascendancy of faith may be impracticable, but the reign of knowledge is incomprehensible."
 
I respect both Islam and Atheism. It would be like choosing between an orange or Banana.
 
c0de said:
Mr. Inuk thought he had something to say about the stupidity of Islam and the enlightened views of atheism... I was merely giving him the opportunity to state his concerns in full...

I guess he is... reconsidering...
Click to expand...

No, c0de - you're baiting another member and I don't like that at all.

Let people respond on threads as they see fit, but trying to force a member to speak out in the open like this is not on. It makes you look like a cyber bully, because you are specifically trying to intimidate another member and isolate them.

Let's have no more of this thanks, and try to ensure your responses on the threads between you both are kept civil.

Thread closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top