Atheism vs. Theism: Is it no more than an irrational conflict for power?

Question

Reviewing the answers my latest questions have received, I see that the atheists who answered do not recognize their assumptions any more than the Theists who have answered my previous questions recognize theirs. Both sides of the argument depend upon sophistry to a high degree.

Neither side seems prepared to acknowledge that the experience of some is not the experience of others, or that interpreting experience is a purely subjective process. Both sides accuse the other of self-deception and, by extension, the deception of others.

Both sides are dogmatic. And when the semantics are boiled away, the bottom line seems to be "I don't like the way your group treats my group". Both sides point to the human rights transgressions of the other group (crusades/inquisition vs Stalin/Mao), while dismissing the transgressions of their own group as atypical/unrepresentative.

I can't help thinking that Atheism and Theism are two labels for the same irrational process we call "arrogance": that my way is the right way for everyone, which is a fundamental aspect of any power-seeking process.

Why is it necessary to polarize our beliefs when we can recognize a spectrum of beliefs: each belief valid for the individual who believes in the belief?

Comparing religious belief with "2+2=4" is the worst kind of sophistry. Even Theists believe 2+2=4.

"Broad brush" indeed.

Answer 1

Atheism isn't about experience... it's about knowledge and truth.

And it's not a belief. It's the absence of belief.

Answer 2

In any, labeled, part of society your going to find people that are abusive and don't represent the main stream of that group.

As a Christian I don't harbor any ill will or disrespect towards anyone that doesn't believe in God. Do I think there wrong, yes. Does it mean that because of that their less of a person than I am, no. Anyone how is living the true life of a Christian would feel this way. Sure I believe that when I die I'm going to heaven, but I'm a sinner just like everyone else and I have the same struggles.

I believe the problem stems from the passion and seal that we as believers have towards spreading the word. But you have to remember the major part of our belief is that we believe in life after death in an eternity in heaven. Why would we want to keep that to ourselves. If we were trapped in a burning building, but knew of an alternate way out would you be upset if we didn't tell you about it? Or would you expect us to tell you about it and let you make your own decision as to wheather or not you want to follow. I believe that's what we are doing. Some individuals that call themselves Christians take this to the point of persecuting others. This is not taught in the Bible! It also gives Christianity a bad name.

Answer 3

Indeed, all sides are dogmatic, but do either truely believe that they are absolutely correct? It's hard to keep up a caring, equality-loving facade when members of an opposing side ask well-intentioned questions when they can't see the rationale of the other side. How can you believe in a being you've never seen? How can you have no faith in something so powerful? It gets a person on the defensive, since these are ideas that we all hold on so tightly to, no matter what the basis of our faith or lack thereof is.

We all just need to step back and take a few deep breaths every once and a while.

Answer 4

I think it's a power play. That primal lizard part of our brain still causes us to fight for hierarichal power. Plus, I think people are so insecure in their beliefs at times that the only way they can reassure themselves they're 100% right is to convert others, or argue until they get some agreement. The problem with spirituality and religion is no one will ever agree. I am one of the people who does believe that no matter what a person believes or disbelieves - if it's right for them - that's what matters. Of course I still find myself getting caught up in arguments so I'm not perfect either. :)

Answer 5

I don't think you're conclusion is merited by the answers to your previous questions, which were all over the map and not really manifesting a particular atheist or theist view. I certainly don't think anything in the answers prompts your conclusion, so I assume it's a conclusion you were already working on?

I call your approach variously "Chamberlainism" ("Peace In Our Time) or "Rodney King Realism" (Can't we all just get along?"). It's an approach that assumes the best compromise between disagreeing parties is for everyone to throw their hands up and agree that truth is unknowable, all evaluations are in some degree subjective and tainted, and the search for knowledge is an attempt to nail jello to the wall. As Tim Russert likes to say, "You've never had my sister's jello."

The primary difference between atheism and theism is that theism is a viewpoint usually based on an ancient claim of divine revelation that cannot be substantiated or verified, and more specifically that such assertions are made as mandatory for all humanity to believe and obey. There's an enormous gap between a claim that an angel dictated a divine book in a cave, and a claim that 2+2=4. When a theist claims that all life was magicked into existence less than 7000 years ago because of a chronology created by an a pre-scientific Anglican Bishop, created by estimating generations as listed in the Book of Genesis, they make that claim on a literalistic interpretation of an ancient mythology, without any empirical validation of the claim. They simply accept the assertion as a matter of religious fidelity. That is quite different from my direct examination of the geologic record and dating fossils by geologic strata in a paleontology class. I am not engaged in arrogance when I argue that young earth claims are false. I am going to the direct physical evidence for validation, which is something no theist does in regard to their fairy tales.

As to why it matters where ethics originate, as someone with graduate degrees in both sociology and theology I think I'm in a good position to speak on the matter. It is the difference between those social mores we agree to and support as a group because we believe they make sense for us, and social mores imposed at the end of a weapon by someone claiming unanswerable divine authority from a being who can never be called to testify as to the validity of the claim.

If you and I agree on a principle that another member of our community disagrees with, we simply disagree, but the one who disagrees with "God" is evil, sub-human, rejected by the almighty and thus whatever we do to them for their disagreement is not our responsibility, for we are mere agents of the almighty doing his or her will, and to question our actions is to be irreligious and demonic. Do you get the difference now? It's the difference between assertion and examination, between accountability and hiding behind the temple curtain.

Overall you paint with a broad brush, but the reason you can do so is that human failings are general and characteristic of our species, whatever our philosophy or affiliation. But that has nothing to do with verifiable truth as an ideal versus dumb acceptance of mere assertion and cultural traditionalism.

Answer 6

Both sides of this argument really tickle me. How do you solve the unexplained with forensic debate? Osho once said, "there is no greater fool than a logician."

An example of the stupidity is the people who insist that someone excavate the Shadow on Mount Ararat because it might be Noah's Ark. Hypothetically, even if they dug up a boat with Noah's name on it, that wouldn't prove conclusively that there was a flood, that there is a God, or anything else these morons expect it to prove.

Religion (or lack of it) isn't about PROVING anything. It's opinion and choice.

Answer 7

I've always said: no knowledge can begin without axioms. I simply choose the scientific axioms. Others may choose theistic axioms -- that doesn't bother me. I'm at peace with those people. I only war with those who misrepresent my side or who try to force themselves on me.

Case in point, one of my first best answers was a response to a christian who basically said, "You know atheists, I could be wrong. And if I am, how pathetic it makes me. But I'm not out trying to convert you, so please respect my right to believe." Lots of atheists started slam him for believing at all.

I didn't.

In fact, I told my 'team' off because they were attacking someone who, in humility, admitted he didn't know any more than we do that we're right or wrong and is just doing the best he could with what he had experienced.

So careful with that Sledge-o-Matic souvenier you got at a Galagher show when a scalpel is needed.

Answer 8

You propose, why the attack on Atheism and then us protecting our top to stay in a secure, non-deluded international? Atheist was murdered for what we *have self belief* in, or lack there of. Why might i might decide for to befriend some thing that teaches incest, genocide, infanticide and fairly some different terrible acts, and labels them as solid in those given circumstances? No, no, no. i think of you will discover I even have some morales and self appreciate. non secular persons (or maximum persons) are barbaric imbeciles that want putting down or a solid shot of amnesia for you to show them quite morales, some acceptable difficulty-loose experience and make the international a greater efficient place. faith isn't something greater suitable than a poison, one it is had an prolonged time to sink in to the wound. although, the international isn't thoroughly affected, we can nevertheless suck the poison back out the wound. almost each theist will pontificate in one way or yet another, and answer you with a quote from a e book written with the help of guy, made with the help of guy and edited with the help of guy. it is all fake metaphors. A humorous tale it is long gone on for long sufficient. we've police to maintain regulation and order at the instant, the army to take care of us and a solid wellbeing equipment to enable us to stay long relaxing lives. we don't desire an outbreak to tug us go into opposite to the dark an prolonged time back. via fact that it is all faith used to do. It stopped scientific enhancement in each container via it no longer conforming with the bible. additionally, the comments human beings make of "the 1st scientist replaced into non secular". No duh. You have been murdered for no longer being non secular, so it is going to assert, definite, of path he bloody replaced into, he had no decision (I say he, via fact that females have been/are penalised and oppressed). there is not any longer something solid approximately it.

Answer 9

All beliefs are valid only if there is no objective truth outside of our beliefs. If there is one holy God who has revealed himself to us through the Bible, then what you believe about what he says matters because it determines, not just what you will do with this life, but how you will spend eternity.

Answer 10

are you saying that agnosticm is the only rational belief? :)

added: I agree completely with this statement: "Why is it necessary to polarize our beliefs when we can recognize a spectrum of beliefs: each belief valid for the individual who believes in the belief", each persons beliefs are equally as valid or invalid as anyone else's (each non-destructive viewpoint)