A Formal Introduction and Statement of Personal Principles

drichards85
Theist
drichards85's picture
Posts: 98
Joined: 2010-07-22
User is offlineOffline
A Formal Introduction and Statement of Personal Principles

I am remiss for never having given a formal introduction of myself.

My name is David Richards, I am 25 years old, I live in the Greater Houston Area of Texas (a suburb to be precise), and I work at a small local computer repair shop as a PC tech; it's the family business.  Currently I'm working on a couple of Tech Certifications.

Several of you will be familiar with me from the Atheist / Theist Debate and Philosophy and Psychology forums, where I have given my two cents on a few threads.  I suppose it is best if I nail my colors to the mast right away, for those of you who might have had difficulty grasping where I come from.  I was raised a Charismatic Evangelical Fundamentalist Protestant but later grew to reject many of the theological attitudes expressed by that version of Christianity.  I converted to Eastern Orthodox Christianity about four years ago (officially baptized and chrismated, or 'confirmed') and have studied ancient philosophy and Christianity for about seven years.

I prefer not to discuss any sort of general, vague notion of theism but, in debate, to put forth my beliefs as an Orthodox Christian, even if I do not explicitly state them as such.  Thus, many of my thoughts have been shaped around various philosophies but I always try to measure these against my life as an Orthodox Christian.  I do not believe it does any good to discuss theism-in-general, as there is no neutral concept of God to be had, upon which all theists can agree.  Among just Christians there are vastly different ways in which God is conceived, so I believe the argument will never get off the ground for atheists until they can provide an internal critique of MY view.  I attempt to do this with atheism as I see that much of it flows from naive empiricism, Enlightenment or post-Enlightenment assumptions about reason, and almost dogmatic naturalism that is self-refuting.  Another important point to keep in mind is that science is essentially a method and as such can be compatible with several different philosophical assumptions.  By itself it proves nothing, but we must interpret raw data and raw facts according to some paradigm.  Therefore I try to avoid discussions around science unless it pertains to the philosophy of science itself.

I want to stress that both theism and atheism have their simplistic adherents and their sophisticated adherents.  I do not assume that any simplistic explanation is good enough to present a cogent case for my side, and I strive to present a sophisticated explanation of my beliefs.  I expect the same of my interlocutors, which is why, when I question assumptions, I really need formal arguments to back up assertions and not mere burden-shifting and question-begging.  I am always willing to have an open discussion, but tend to become annoyed with psychoanalysis or mantra-spouting.  (Flying Spaghetti Monster being just one example.)  I believe rational atheists can, and should, do better than this.  That is all for me; this is more of a statement of principles, and I hope I haven't worn out my welcome.

IC XC

David


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
drichards85

drichards85 wrote:

mellestad,

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."  I believe that naturalism, together with classical foundationalism, empiricism, evidentialism, materialism, physicalism or any other views on which it relies can be eliminated as impossible beliefs since they fail to give an adequate account for the realism of other minds, the realism of material objects, moral realism, or realism in language for starters.  Though I do not believe that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason, I believe that the philosophy of naturalism can be shown to be impossible and to lead to nihilism.  That is it in a nutshell.

IC XC

David

P.S. Note that this is not a proper argument, I have just expressed the reasons why I reject naturalism and not an argument for any of these theses.

EDIT: From one angle my belief is simply a rejection of naturalism; I do not need to give positive proof that there is something outside of nature so long as I can show that nature cannot be all there is.

1. Are you saying you have no positive reason for your beliefs?

2. Are you saying the only reason you reject realism is because it cannot verify reality is real?  I'm not aware of any system that can verify reality is real, don't we just assume it is because to do otherwise is unproductive?

3. So how do you believe the existence of God can be verified?

4. You say naturalism leads to nihilism like that is a bad thing.  What is wrong with nihilism?

5. What useful conclusions does your methodology provide about the universe that naturalism cannot?  (Edit:  Or reality, existence, etc.)

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:drichards85

mellestad wrote:

drichards85 wrote:

mellestad,

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."  I believe that naturalism, together with classical foundationalism, empiricism, evidentialism, materialism, physicalism or any other views on which it relies can be eliminated as impossible beliefs since they fail to give an adequate account for the realism of other minds, the realism of material objects, moral realism, or realism in language for starters.  Though I do not believe that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason, I believe that the philosophy of naturalism can be shown to be impossible and to lead to nihilism.  That is it in a nutshell.

IC XC

David

P.S. Note that this is not a proper argument, I have just expressed the reasons why I reject naturalism and not an argument for any of these theses.

EDIT: From one angle my belief is simply a rejection of naturalism; I do not need to give positive proof that there is something outside of nature so long as I can show that nature cannot be all there is.

1. Are you saying you have no positive reason for your beliefs?

2. Are you saying the only reason you reject realism is because it cannot verify reality is real?  I'm not aware of any system that can verify reality is real, don't we just assume it is because to do otherwise is unproductive?

3. So how do you believe the existence of God can be verified?

4. You say naturalism leads to nihilism like that is a bad thing.  What is wrong with nihilism?

5. What useful conclusions does your methodology provide about the universe that naturalism cannot?  (Edit:  Or reality, existence, etc.)

To me none of this matters. It is merely mental blastermation and a distraction he uses to avoid the fact he has no evidence for his god claim.

Until he can come up with a tool better than scientific method, he has nothing but a naked assertion. He knows that, even if he doesn't realize he knows it.

All discussing this does is allow him to distract us.

We have, or at least I have, presented him a way to prove it to us that is short and to the point without all these sideshows.

He has contradicted himself by saying that theology's method cant be compared to scientific method, and then hypocritically said the bible is consistent with science. He wants it both ways and the only way to do that is to move the goal posts.

All of your questions are of philosophy and while fun to ponder, have nothing to do with his ultimate goal in convincing us that his Christian god is the one true god. He cant even prove the existence of any type of super natural being, much less his particular flavor.

If you are patient with this long walk, kudos to you, really. I simply cut to the chase.

If he wants to know what will convince me, I have already told him what will convince me.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:mellestad

Brian37 wrote:

mellestad wrote:

drichards85 wrote:

mellestad,

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be true."  I believe that naturalism, together with classical foundationalism, empiricism, evidentialism, materialism, physicalism or any other views on which it relies can be eliminated as impossible beliefs since they fail to give an adequate account for the realism of other minds, the realism of material objects, moral realism, or realism in language for starters.  Though I do not believe that the existence of God can be demonstrated through reason, I believe that the philosophy of naturalism can be shown to be impossible and to lead to nihilism.  That is it in a nutshell.

IC XC

David

P.S. Note that this is not a proper argument, I have just expressed the reasons why I reject naturalism and not an argument for any of these theses.

EDIT: From one angle my belief is simply a rejection of naturalism; I do not need to give positive proof that there is something outside of nature so long as I can show that nature cannot be all there is.

1. Are you saying you have no positive reason for your beliefs?

2. Are you saying the only reason you reject realism is because it cannot verify reality is real?  I'm not aware of any system that can verify reality is real, don't we just assume it is because to do otherwise is unproductive?

3. So how do you believe the existence of God can be verified?

4. You say naturalism leads to nihilism like that is a bad thing.  What is wrong with nihilism?

5. What useful conclusions does your methodology provide about the universe that naturalism cannot?  (Edit:  Or reality, existence, etc.)

To me none of this matters. It is merely mental blastermation and a distraction he uses to avoid the fact he has no evidence for his god claim.

Until he can come up with a tool better than scientific method, he has nothing but a naked assertion. He knows that, even if he doesn't realize he knows it.

All discussing this does is allow him to distract us.

We have, or at least I have, presented him a way to prove it to us that is short and to the point without all these sideshows.

He has contradicted himself by saying that theology's method cant be compared to scientific method, and then hypocritically said the bible is consistent with science. He wants it both ways and the only way to do that is to move the goal posts.

All of your questions are of philosophy and while fun to ponder, have nothing to do with his ultimate goal in convincing us that his Christian god is the one true god. He cant even prove the existence of any type of super natural being, much less his particular flavor.

If you are patient with this long walk, kudos to you, really. I simply cut to the chase.

If he wants to know what will convince me, I have already told him what will convince me.

 

I know, I've even said exactly that in post....38 I think.

One of the reasons I wade through this particular type of conversation is that this brand of debate is difficult for me.  I find arguments from philosophy, metaphysics, ontologies, etc. to be very obtuse...I think the people using the arguments revel in the fact that they are obtuse.  The entire exercise is like learning another language.  I need to learn that language, although the sad fact is all the fancy wording seems to continually come down to a tactic of confusion by profusion of verbosity.  I was very interested in philosophy in general in my early twenties, but I soon realized that it was almost pure navel gazing.  Most of it adds absolutely nothing to the human experience, excepting that warm, smug feeling.

The latest batch of questions has been to get him to say what practical thing made him decide naturalism is not as suitable as whatever it is he follows.

I am 99% sure his philosophy is based on his preconception that the Christian God exists rather than the other way around, but he seems intent on not saying anything without a wall of jargon so...

 

From what I've seen over a couple years of debating is this stuff sounds great and complex until you actually say things in clear language, then it is absurd and silly.  Your basic message about brain with no brain (which I'm sure you just copy and paste at this point, heh) is right on, but most of them just reject it without thinking it over.  In this very conversation I've gone point by point and he hasn't been able to list a single real disagreement with the message, but he still rejects it out of hand.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I know, I've

mellestad wrote:

I know, I've even said exactly that in post....38 I think.

One of the reasons I wade through this particular type of conversation is that this brand of debate is difficult for me.  I find arguments from philosophy, metaphysics, ontologies, etc. to be very obtuse...I think the people using the arguments revel in the fact that they are obtuse.  The entire exercise is like learning another language.  I need to learn that language, although the sad fact is all the fancy wording seems to continually come down to a tactic of confusion by profusion of verbosity.  I was very interested in philosophy in general in my early twenties, but I soon realized that it was almost pure navel gazing.  Most of it adds absolutely nothing to the human experience, excepting that warm, smug feeling.

The latest batch of questions has been to get him to say what practical thing made him decide naturalism is not as suitable as whatever it is he follows.

I am 99% sure his philosophy is based on his preconception that the Christian God exists rather than the other way around, but he seems intent on not saying anything without a wall of jargon so...

 

From what I've seen over a couple years of debating is this stuff sounds great and complex until you actually say things in clear language, then it is absurd and silly.  Your basic message about brain with no brain (which I'm sure you just copy and paste at this point, heh) is right on, but most of them just reject it without thinking it over.  In this very conversation I've gone point by point and he hasn't been able to list a single real disagreement with the message, but he still rejects it out of hand.

You are right on target. I used to really get into this type of discussion when I was in college and didn't have anything else to do. It is really fun when you are drunk. Mostly I think it is just a great way to avoid answering questions while trying to sound more intelligent than your opponent. Maybe David will get around to making a stand sooner or later and directly answer a question. But why risk being wrong when you can come out and say that nothing can be proved wrong? 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

mellestad wrote:

I know, I've even said exactly that in post....38 I think.

One of the reasons I wade through this particular type of conversation is that this brand of debate is difficult for me.  I find arguments from philosophy, metaphysics, ontologies, etc. to be very obtuse...I think the people using the arguments revel in the fact that they are obtuse.  The entire exercise is like learning another language.  I need to learn that language, although the sad fact is all the fancy wording seems to continually come down to a tactic of confusion by profusion of verbosity.  I was very interested in philosophy in general in my early twenties, but I soon realized that it was almost pure navel gazing.  Most of it adds absolutely nothing to the human experience, excepting that warm, smug feeling.

The latest batch of questions has been to get him to say what practical thing made him decide naturalism is not as suitable as whatever it is he follows.

I am 99% sure his philosophy is based on his preconception that the Christian God exists rather than the other way around, but he seems intent on not saying anything without a wall of jargon so...

 

From what I've seen over a couple years of debating is this stuff sounds great and complex until you actually say things in clear language, then it is absurd and silly.  Your basic message about brain with no brain (which I'm sure you just copy and paste at this point, heh) is right on, but most of them just reject it without thinking it over.  In this very conversation I've gone point by point and he hasn't been able to list a single real disagreement with the message, but he still rejects it out of hand.

You are right on target. I used to really get into this type of discussion when I was in college and didn't have anything else to do. It is really fun when you are drunk. Mostly I think it is just a great way to avoid answering questions while trying to sound more intelligent than your opponent. Maybe David will get around to making a stand sooner or later and directly answer a question. But why risk being wrong when you can come out and say that nothing can be proved wrong? 

Yea...And I'm really not trying to be condescending either.  I'm barely older than David is and he's a smart guy.  But to me philosophy is an intellectual dead end...eventually you get to the point where you realize, logically, nothing can be 100% confirmed and you need to live with that fact.  The thing I love about science and naturalism is you can proceed and get magnificent things done even knowing that.  In philosophy you are endlessly asking, why, why, why, why and never getting any answers.  With naturalism and science you are asking how, how, how, how and getting an endless stream of fascinating discoveries about life, the universe and everything.

To me it comes down to practicality.  That is one of the reasons I'm an atheist, theism adds *nothing* of value to life as long as you can function as an adult with the realization that you probably aren't immortal, and that's OK.

He says naturalism's crime is assuming reality can be discerned with the senses and he calls us wrong for acting under that assumption while at the same time he assumes the basis of reality is an unknowable super-being.  Well, I guess I'm OK with that.

I'll be excited if he can show what it is about reality that is: 1. 'real', not assumed 2. supernatural 3. better explained without naturalism.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Part of being an adult is

Part of being an adult is also knowing that some things are probably not knowable.  That doesn't mean you give up, rather it means you proceed as best you can with what you *are* able to figure out.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5520
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Part of

mellestad wrote:

Part of being an adult is also knowing that some things are probably not knowable.  That doesn't mean you give up, rather it means you proceed as best you can with what you *are* able to figure out.

 

Yea. And even many things that are knowable it is ok not to know them. For example, I know that a C-130 can fly through the air but at best I can make an amateurish explanation of why. I certainly don't know enough to build one. You simply can't know everything and sometimes you just have to say I don't know. I believe one of the main driving forces of theism in general is people don't like the unknown. It scares them. So having an omni-answer in god is very appealing to them. Which is why I got involved in this thread. It irritates me when theists make the argument "you can't explain x therefore god did it." I can't explain a lot of things I know god didn't do.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
drichards85 wrote: cj,

drichards85 wrote:

cj,

Correlation does not imply causation.  It may be the case that certain states of mind correspond states of brain matter, and even that states of brain matter are a necessary condition for states of mind, but where is the argument out states of mind are caused by states of brain matter?  If it can be shown that states of brain matter cause states of mind, then my belief and your belief are both caused by brain matter, so how do we determine whose belief is right and whose is wrong?  Or perhaps because all beliefs are caused by nature they are all equally right, or equally wrong, or can we know?  Is knowledge real or is it just a term we give to our own states of brain matter?  Solipsism looms large here.

 

The examples given in the last sentence of the quote from Reading in the Brain.  You already know and believe this.  Heroin, cocaine, lithium, Valium, Welbutrin, marijuana, and how many other chemicals are KNOWN to affect your brain which affects your mind.  If Prozac didn't make people feel better by affecting their brain regardless of the state of their mind, the pharmaceutical company would have gone broke.  Additionally with the advances in imaging our brains, we can see these changes take place in real time as well.  It isn't a correlation test they are running.  Give it a rest, David, this argument isn't.

Our beliefs are formed by our brains and by our experiences and by our personalities and by our genetics and by our knowledge.  And other things.  Beliefs are not simple, our brains are not simple and our minds are not simple.  How we sort out what is real, what to base our beliefs on and which is right is a personal matter - my opinion.  Other people on the forum won't agree with me.  Fine.  

I can not accept a god/s/dess who has no apparent effect on the real world around me and has never once spoken to me even when I was trying to be a christian and I prayed.  My belief.  My choice.  We can continue to discuss if you want. 

 

drichards85 wrote:

I do not pretend that I have no personal investments.  My point is that to bring those up in debate does not effect whether or not my belief is true; if my belief is true then it is true despite why I believe it, and if it is false then it is false no matter how clever my arguments are.  Brian appears to delight in ad hominem, which is perhaps why every single response to me has contained at least one line about how I just do not want to admit that my God is made up.  As if my subconscious is scared of the truth of his and I just cannot bring myself to confess it.

I have to laugh at this obnoxious display of hubris and simply point out that I have never initiated a personal attack on someone here because they just disagreed; I have, however, kicked back when I felt that the attacks were full of vitriol and irrelevant to the point.  Someone can claim all day long that I have ulterior motives to believe, but I never denied a personal investment, I just pointed out that no person here is above such personal investments so if they do not effect the truth of your belief, they do not effect the truth of mine either.  Yes, I believe in God because my grandmother died when I was six - so what?  If I believe that racism is wrong because black people make good music and are good at athletics, is my belief that racism is wrong correct?  Are my reasons to believe racism is wrong correct?  Isn't it possible for someone to believe the right thing for the wrong reasons?  If that's the case then what the hell is the point in bringing up my supposed psychological reasons to believe?

I am not sure where you or anyone else got the idea that God has a brain, whether visible or invisible.  As Brian would say, "Who said God has an invisible brain?  Not me."

IC XC

David

 

Well, it seems to me Brian is shaving hairs.  Reading back over his posts, he is saying that the beliefs are lame - to his way of thinking - but he has NOT said that you are lame.  It also seems to me that you identify with your beliefs.  Otherwise, Brian's comments would not upset you. 

On a forum like this, everyone who chooses to post hangs their beliefs out there for people to take pot shots at.  Some people try to be pleasant about it, others just let it rip.  Again, your choice as to whether you continue to post here or not and it is your choice about how to respond.

God/s/dess brains - for all the living creatures we have on this planet, the ones with a larger collection of neurons in a centralized location are the more intelligent ones - able to solve complex problems, argue about philosophy and so on.  What is the nature of god/s/dess?  Living?  Infinite?  Finite?  Dead?  Able to think?  No?  If yes, then how?  With what? 

god/s/dess may be:

finite with brain

finite without brain

infinite without finite structures like brains

infinite with brains and maybe other finite structures as well

Can you think of any other combinations?   Maybe god/s/dess is the dark matter of the universe - which would put him/her/it/them in the infinite without finite structures category.  Though I would have to agree with many atheists that is just a 'god of the gaps'. 

I would have to say that if god/s/dess exists, we have no way of knowing which is "right" as god/s/dess refuses to or can not interact with our finite universe.  As long as there is no interaction, no physical effects of his/her/its/their presence, then I have to assume god/s/dess does not exist.  That is my philosophy and I don't particularly care which category of philosophy anyone chooses to brand it with.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:god/s/dess may be:

cj wrote:

god/s/dess may be:

finite with brain

finite without brain

infinite without finite structures like brains

infinite with brains and maybe other finite structures as well

A god can be whatever the believer makes up because there is no universal standard that can be tested. Just like there is no universal test for a "snarfwidget".


In the end the truth is that thought requires material. There has to be a structure that holds these thoughts. The list you posted only lists of people's imagination and people's imagination can and do vary.

None of these examples, much less the Christian god claim, have any means of being universally tested and falsified.

What we do have in human history are tons of dead gods and the known fact that humans are capable of believing false things.

Since god claims cannot be tested and we know people are capable of making them up, between the two choices of which is more likely, I'd say people make them up and they are not real, none of them, including the Christian god claim.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I have always been with you,

I have always been with you, Brian.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
If you left a sect to join

If you left a sect to join another because you disagreed with the first one, are they going to hell or is their happy time kool-aid simply not to your taste?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I have always been

cj wrote:

I have always been with you, Brian.

Msy/December romances are tough to keep going, plus I like being single, no offense.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4147
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:   On a forum

cj wrote:

 

   On a forum like this, everyone who chooses to post hangs their beliefs out there for people to take pot shots at.  Some people try to be pleasant about it, others just let it rip.  Again, your choice as to whether you continue to post here or not and it is your choice about how to respond. 

  That's true.  The atheists on this forum frequently bang heads and call each other out all the time.  When we aren't intellectually dissecting theists we usually debate among ourselves.  Pardon the pun but no one's view ( theist or not ) is "sacred" around here; everything posted is subject to vigorous counterargument.  Occasionally we get pissed but that's the nature of debate.  No harm, no foul.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:cj wrote:I

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

I have always been with you, Brian.

Msy/December romances are tough to keep going, plus I like being single, no offense.

 

Sigh.  <rolls eyes>

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:cj

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

cj wrote:

 

   On a forum like this, everyone who chooses to post hangs their beliefs out there for people to take pot shots at.  Some people try to be pleasant about it, others just let it rip.  Again, your choice as to whether you continue to post here or not and it is your choice about how to respond. 

  That's true.  The atheists on this forum frequently bang heads and call each other out all the time.  When we aren't intellectually dissecting theists we usually debate among ourselves.  Pardon the pun but no one's view ( theist or not ) is "sacred" around here; everything posted is subject to vigorous counterargument.  Occasionally we get pissed but that's the nature of debate.  No harm, no foul.

In the past couple days, not to mention many times in the past on this and other boards, I try to always make this clear. It really is nothing personal. And everyone here both theist and atheist have different ways of debate.

It is going to get heated from time to time. No different when co-workers have an extremely busy day, and butt heads. Considering that the issue of the (alleged) existence of a super natural being IS important to both the theist and atheist, it should be no surprise that passions will get heated.

But as well and said here too, this website allows it's members to scrutinize ALL claims from even atheists. We have had debates about politics too, even amongst atheists. We have had debates about science, even amongst atheists.

Theism is not the only thing scrutinized and blasphemed here. We have had posts and or threads about time travel, space travel, crop circles, JFK conspiracies, ghosts ect ect ect ect ect.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
All things do not hinge on a

All things do not hinge on a belief or non-belief in a "god". Conservative and liberal can be found on both sides and many disagreements in the rubbing together of the two ends occur. I have had my share of support from those who deem my conservative side too much to bear. Yes I said support, if everyone agreed with everything I said I would be bored to tears on the internet.

Anyway back to my question to the op, how can one waffle through religions and still manage to take it seriously?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin