Atheists and theists: Endless confrontations

[kowalskil]

Spiritualists and Materialists​

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

==========================================

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Complexity]

I would be happy if I never met a theist or a spiritualist again.

 

[Dinwar]

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists.

The theists can stop trying to discriminate against me via the law, stop trying to force me to pay for their churches, stop trying to brainwash my children, stop trying to murder me, etc. In exchange, I'm willing to promise to continue to not do any of those things to them.

Anything else is just theists demanding superiority. And that's necessarily going to generate conflict.

 

[Limbo]

Spiritualists and Materialists​

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists.

I applaud your desire to eliminate conflict. I would like to help. I found a problem with the very first sentence I would like to tell you about.

"Mathematics is like theology; it starts with axioms (initially accepted truths) and uses logical derivation to justify consecutive claims."

Theology is not the key. Its irrelevant. Theology didn't start with axioms, it started with esotericism. Esotericism starts with mysticism which in turn starts with mystical experiences. Mystical experience is the key. So I would recommend that you go back to the drawing board and study comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, and comparative religion. Here are a few book titles, which I have read, to get you started.

The Varieties of Religious Experience
The Varieties of Anomalous Experience
The Hero With a Thousand Faces
History of Mysticism
Mysticism (by Underhill)
A History of God
The Inner Reaches of Outer Space
Modern Man in Search of a Soul
The World's Religions
The Perennial Philosophy

 

[kowalskil]

I applaud your desire to eliminate conflict. I would like to help. I found a problem with the very first sentence I would like to tell you about.

"Mathematics is like theology; it starts with axioms (initially accepted truths) and uses logical derivation to justify consecutive claims."

Theology is not the key. Its irrelevant. Theology didn't start with axioms, it starts with esotericism. Esotericism starts with mysticism which in turn starts with mystical experiences. Mystical experience is the key. So I would recommend that you go back to the drawing board and study comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, and comparative religion. Here are a few book titles, which I have read, to get you started.

The Varieties of Religious Experience
The Varieties of Anomalous Experience
The Hero With a Thousand Faces
History of Mysticism
A History of God
The Inner Reaches of Outer Space
Modern Man in Search of a Soul

Thank you. But I disagree that theology does not start with axioms. Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth. The same is true for other spiritual world entities.

RELIGION = THEOLOGY + MANY OTHER THINGS

I want to address conceptual conflicts between theists and atheists, avoiding the word “religion.” To discuss religion one would have to address differences between religions, political exploitation of theism, political exploitation of atheism, etc. etc. Such important topics are certainly worth addressing, but I am not the one to do this.

==========================================

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[amused]

Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth.

No it isn't.

Lawrence Krauss - A Universe From Nothing

 

[Limbo]

Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth.

All this God business didn't start with theologists who just decided to take the existence of God as a self-evident truth and go from there. That's a materialist myth. It started long ago with spontaneous mystical experiences of the sort that date back tens of thousands of years to primordial shamanism...and they are found in every mystical tradition including Christian mysticism. If one doesn't start there, they introduce compound error.

I see it time and time again. People misunderstanding where it all starts. If you don't start at the right place you end up at the wrong place and conflict continues.

 

[Minarvia]

I would be happy if I never met a theist or a spiritualist again.

Yes, once again I don't have the rocket scientist brains to add to a religious thread, tho I hope to get there some day; but, Complexity, seeing you here just made my night! *hugs*

Sorry if that's inappropriate, but I've been away and missed your postings, threads, and even this short sentence! LOL

I also feel that I would be happy to not meet any more theists or spiritualists again. *Sigh*

I suppose the endless conflicts will truly be endless. Once one religion goes down the crapper another is there to take its place. And on and on and on...

 

[ynot]

Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth.

Do you seriously expect Atheists to accept/agree with this? If so then I suggest this is where the "conflict" starts.

 

[ynot]

The theists can stop trying to discriminate against me via the law, stop trying to force me to pay for their churches, stop trying to brainwash my children, stop trying to murder me, etc. In exchange, I'm willing to promise to continue to not do any of those things to them.

Anything else is just theists demanding superiority. And that's necessarily going to generate conflict.

This . . .

 

[Lowpro]

All this God business didn't start with theologists who just decided to take the existence of God as a self-evident truth and go from there. That's a materialist myth. It started long ago with spontaneous mystical experiences of the sort that date back tens of thousands of years to primordial shamanism...and they are found in every mystical tradition including Christian mysticism. If one doesn't start there, they introduce compound error.

I see it time and time again. People misunderstanding where it all starts. If you don't start at the right place you end up at the wrong place and conflict continues.

You almost sound annoyed when people conflate religion with spirituality =P

 

[slingblade]

==========================================

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia), a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey, USA. I am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is an autobiography based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

Did you want applause or something?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Spiritualists and Materialists​

I still do not know what can be done to eliminate endless conflicts between materialists and spiritualists. But comments collected at several websites prompted me to compose a short on-line paper at:

http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/theo_sci.html

It can probably be used to initiate an interesting discussion here. Please share this link with those who might be interested.

==========================================

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia), a retired nuclear physicist from New Jersey, USA. I am also the author of a FREE ONLINE book entitled “Diary of a Former Communist: Thoughts, Feelings, Reality.”

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html

It is an autobiography based on a diary kept between 1946 and 2004 (in the USSR, Poland, France and the USA).

It's not a problem of Atheists vs theists nor materialist vs idealists. It's mostly a problem of honest vs dishonest people. Rational vs deluded. And that won't change. There will always be people honestly trying to have a decent dialogue without recurring to logical fallacies and there will always be people who are either deliberately lying to support their pet beliefs or just flat out delusional. That won't change. It's the way it's always gonna be.

The key is to identify when one should even bother arguing with someone. Ine doesn't always need to win the argument. Sometimes one needs to simply walk out. That's the most important lesson I've taken from my interactions in this forum and it has saved me from many potential unpleasant discussions outside of the internet.

 

[Pup]

Thank you. But I disagree that theology does not start with axioms. Existence of God is taken as a self-evident truth. The same is true for other spiritual world entities.

You make it sound like a hypothetical exercise in logic: If there is a god with trait X, then Y must be true.

But theists don't typically work that way. Logic flies right out the window, so the comparison to mathematics, with its logical structure, is meaningless.

For example:

Atheist: If 1) murdering babies is bad and 2) God is good and 3) the Bible is true, then the Bible would not say that God murdered babies. But the Bible says that God murdered all the babies on earth with a global flood.

Theist: Those are all true. God works in mysterious ways.

 

[kowalskil]

You make it sound like a hypothetical exercise in logic: If there is a god with trait X, then Y must be true.

But theists don't typically work that way. Logic flies right out the window, so the comparison to mathematics, with its logical structure, is meaningless.

For example:

Atheist: If 1) murdering babies is bad and 2) God is good and 3) the Bible is true, then the Bible would not say that God murdered babies. But the Bible says that God murdered all the babies on earth with a global flood.

Theist: Those are all true. God works in mysterious ways.

Biblical statements, as far as know, are not derived by theologians; they are taken on faith. But the claim about the age of the earth is based biblical chronology. The mistake is not in logic; it is in making a claim about the material world by using the spiritual world methodology. Our planet belongs to material world and a claim about its age must be based only on experimental data.

We have to accept reality of two worlds, material and spiritual, each with its own methodology of validation of claims. The idea that theism and science are two "non-overlapping magisteria" was formulated by Stephen Gould, about 15 years ago.

Are biblical statements consistent with each other, according to logical analysis? That is a good question. Perhaps someone will answer it, quoting from real debates among theologians. I am a scientist; not a theologian.

==========================================

Breach of rule 6 removed.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[SezMe]

Kowalski, I'm with slingblade. Cut the crap below the equal signs. If you must brag, put it in your sig so sensible people can ignore it.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

We have to accept reality of two worlds, material and spiritual, each with its own methodology of validation of claims.

No we don't. One is real, the other imaginary.

If we have to accept the 'reality' of a spiritual world that doesn't exist, then what reason do we have to reject the 'reality' of other fantasy worlds such as the Star Trek Universe, Tolkien's Middle Earth, or the Viking worlds of Asgard and Utgard?

 

[Dinwar]

We have to accept reality of two worlds, material and spiritual, each with its own methodology of validation of claims.

If you can present evidence (using the scientific definition fo the term) for a spiritual world, I'll gladly accept it. Otherwise, it's an arbitrary assertion.

Though reading the rest of your post, it makes a certain kind of sense. All the stuff you agree with is a proper application of the material/spiritual dichotomy; all the stuff you disagree with is an improper application thereof. It allows you to justify all the cherry-picking you want.

 

[Lowpro]

It allows you to justify all the cherry-picking you want.

And gives him a method to sell books to idiots who would buy them.

EDIT: Doh it's a free autobiography; he can't even market well.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

As an atheist I have absolutely no need to have a conflict with religious people. Believe what you want.
But as others have stated, the conflict starts when someone else's religion starts dictating what I (or others not sharing it) can or cannot do.
I live in the Netherlands and even here a tiny extreme christian minority has used clever political maneuvering to keep shops closed on sunday, even though >80% of the population would like them to be able to be open on that day too.

And that's a political minority, I'd hate to live in a country where the religious bronze age mentality has actual political power and forbids unbelievers from making their own moral choices. Like when to wear a scarf or not, or the ability to have an abortion or not.