I believe Mr. Inuk has something he wants to state...
The floor is yours
What is this? Chopped liver?
Or prepping.
and.......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.
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?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.
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?
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....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?
what supposed openness of mind, makes the blind atheist superior to a Muslim?
No, I am stating it not implying it.You're implying that Islam blinds one to reality by evoking an unquestioning obedience... rite?
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.Well, tell me Einstein, what supposed openness of mind, makes the blind atheist superior to a Muslim?
Because doubt is a realistic, rational and practical tool that produces results time after time.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 fear this says more about you than the atheists you have talked to.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.
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....
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.
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....
I had no idea you were such an idealist, Paladin.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.
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.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.
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...