PureX
Veteran Member
How do you conclude that "Hindus and their gods don't effect society"? Also, the theist proposition doesn't specify effecting "society", but only "humanity". Nor does it specify the nature of that effect. That kind of specificity falls under the umbrella of 'theology', not 'theism'. And rejecting any specific theological paradigm does not define anyone as an "atheist" simply because there are so many of those paradigms, and because even most theists reject most theological paradigms.
We're falling into word gibberish, here. 'Theism' is a whole category philosophical thought based on a general tenet (the existence of "god"). Within that philosophical tenet there are a great many individual theological propositions about the nature, character, and existence of "god", and about how these effect humanity. The labels "theism" and "atheism" (theist and atheist) apply to the acceptance or rejection of this basic tenet as being true or false. AFTER THAT, we begin the endless and very complicated debate about the exact nature, character, existence, and effect of this proposed "god" ... as we move further into this whole theological category of human thought and conceptualization regarding 'god'.
The only reason I added this addendum is because any philosophical proposition that does not ultimately effect humanity is a mute proposition, ... to us. Why debate that which has no appreciable effect? Why care what the 'result' is when there is no effective result? See what I mean?
Again, what is the point of labeling oneself and then refusing to explain, defend, or otherwise elaborate on the assertion that the label implies? Better still, ask yourself what possible motive there could be for someone doing exactly that.
That is my favorite debate to engage in. The actual debate between theism and atheism (as opposed to all the endless theological and religious debates that tend to go nowhere). I agree with you that there is an excellent debate to be had based strictly on the theist proposition. Without religion. And without the social-political baggage. But is seems that whenever I try to have this debate with an 'atheist', I soon discover that they aren't atheists at all. They're anti-religionists. Or God forbid they're unwitting members of the cult of "scientism". And no debate is even possible, then.
There are a lot of different reasons one might be skeptical. Some of those reasons are good for us, while others are not. If I were a 'skeptic', I would want to do some soul-searching to determine why I am so skeptical; so as not to fall prey to those bad motives (like blinding bias, egotism, willful ignorance, bigotry, and so on).
I agree. But in the end we are responsible for whatever decisions we make, and we will suffer the consequences, accordingly. So it's important. And I assume that's why we're all here, looking for the possibilities.
The theist proposition is not particularly complicated. But the myriad of theological paradigms that have developed under it's umbrella are complex, and numerous. That's just how it is. We humans are a complex phenomena.
Except that's just willful ignorance. 1., belief is irrelevant to truthfulness. So let's remove 'belief' from the discussion right now. 2., do you think the proposition is true or false? If you have made a determination, then by what thought process did you do so? 3. why would you reject these kinds of questions? What are you trying to hide, and from whom? I would think that as an honest, intelligent being, you would want to know these things, for yourself, if not for the benefit of others.
Most of our beliefs are based on evidence. What we don't have is certainty. What 'belief' is, is the presumption that our 'evidence' was enough to be certain. All we really believe, when we 'believe in' something, is that we're right about it. That's all belief is: the assumption that we're right. It lends no actual credibility to any proposition that it's being attached to.
We always have some evidence.
Not necessarily. We can assert all kinds of things to be true or false whether we believe they are true, or not. Again, this is why belief is irrelevant to these discussions.
Atheism is a theological position. It is the position that the proposal that God/gods exists is untrue. As a theological position, it can and should be reasoned and defended.
I am not here to play to the weaknesses of others. I am here to share what I think I know. And to learn from what others think they know, if I don't already know it. And I can only do that be being succinct and forthright. I'm not here to 'win' anything. And I'm not here to change anyone's minds about anything. I'm here to relay what I see, tell you what I think about it, and why I think it. And if you see a flaw in my thinking, I'm happy to hear it, and to stand corrected.
Last edited:
