What Do You Feel Is Wrong with Theism?

[The Voice of Reason]

I know that most of you will see this post for what it is, but for the sake of a couple of members, I absolutely must post the following statement:

The problem with Theism is that all theists worship Satan, and they can't see how irrational that is because they use "Satan logic".

Whew! I feel better just getting that one out there.



PS - to my theistic friends here on RF, the above statement is not intended to be taken in earnest.

 

[Magic Man]

I know that most of you will see this post for what it is, but for the sake of a couple of members, I absolutely must post the following statement:

The problem with Theism is that all theists worship Satan, and they can't see how irrational that is because they use "Satan logic".

Whew! I feel better just getting that one out there.



PS - to my theistic friends here on RF, the above statement is not intended to be taken in earnest.

What a load of crap.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What a load of crap.

Ad hominem! Ad hominem!

(Well, okay, it isn't really, but I just want to be consistent).

 

[science_is_my_god]

What do I feel is wrong with theism? Well, personally, I feel that most (not nessesarily all) theists adhere to beliefs they think are 100% true, even without any evidence to back those beliefs up. They like to use a pretty word called "faith." When people think they know how the world works, they stop looking for other answers or explanations. Science and discovery of the universe are haulted, and free thought is grounded to a complete stop. When we stop wondering, stop thinking, and stop dreaming, we limit our potential as a human race. If we turn from the notion of a "god" and start looking at ourselves and what we are really capable of, we begin to realize that there is nothing we cannot achieve.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What's wrong with skepticism?

Generally, nothing, like Jaiket said. In fact, it is a wonderful tool. But there are two things you have to watch out for. First, while skepticism is a useful compass, it's not a discoverer of new or higher realities (truths). Second, it's a weapon, especially in RF. It's a comfortable shield to hide behind when confronted with new and unfamiliar concepts and a spear to chuck at your enemies who have experience but no tangible evidence.

For example: If I were to say, "There was a time when pork spareribs were a "trash cut" and sometimes given away by butchers," the usual skeptical response would be, "Where's your proof?" I have no proof but the proof of being an "old fart" with experience. "Hah!" says the skeptic. "If you have no evidence, either you're nuts or the butcher giving the meat away was either nuts or a personal friend!"

What can I do but shrug?

But I'm stupid enough to keep on talking.

 

[fantome profane]

Generally, nothing, like Jaiket said. In fact, it is a wonderful tool. But there are two things you have to watch out for. First, while skepticism is a useful compass, it's not a discoverer of new or higher realities (truths). Second, it's a weapon, especially in RF. It's a comfortable shield to hide behind when confronted with new and unfamiliar concepts and a spear to chuck at your enemies who have experience but no tangible evidence.

For example: If I were to say, "There was a time when pork spareribs were a "trash cut" and sometimes given away by butchers," the usual skeptical response would be, "Where's your proof?" I have no proof but the proof of being an "old fart" with experience. "Hah!" says the skeptic. "If you have no evidence, either you're nuts or the butcher giving the meat away was either nuts or a personal friend!"

What can I do but shrug?

But I'm stupid enough to keep on talking.

What you are describing does happen quite often on this board, and it is a fallacy. But it is not scepticism. Not accepting your claim without proof would be the scepticism, but what you are describing is also the automatic acceptance of the opposite, and this is clearly not scepticism. It is a common fallacy that is employed pretty much equally by atheists and theists on this board.

 

[Papersock]

Isn't skepticism about suspending judgement when no sufficient evidence is available?

 

[Jeremiah]

" What Do You Feel Is Wrong with Theism?"

The ism. It would be nice if people could be viewed as people and not as an atheist or a theist.

 

[robtex]

What do I feel is wrong with theism? Well, personally, I feel that most (not nessesarily all) theists adhere to beliefs they think are 100% true, even without any evidence to back those beliefs up. They like to use a pretty word called "faith." When people think they know how the world works, they stop looking for other answers or explanations. Science and discovery of the universe are haulted, and free thought is grounded to a complete stop. When we stop wondering, stop thinking, and stop dreaming, we limit our potential as a human race. If we turn from the notion of a "god" and start looking at ourselves and what we are really capable of, we begin to realize that there is nothing we cannot achieve.

I think you are on the right track but it can be drilled down further. For starters the two common explanations for a perception of God is fideism and evidence. For background reading on fideism Soren kierkegaard and Blase pascal . The important note though is that the two ideas, fideism as a path to God and evidence are mutually exclusive design. If one's perception of God rest on fideism, which would include words like faith and belief those ideas are held in the absence of evidence. Which means if ones take on it is fideistic, based on belief or faith than it is not based on evidence and vice versa as faith, belief fideism is a position held in the absence of evidence.

Some, actually many theists muddle the two and haven't taken the time to understand the theories and explanation behind is and their relationship to God. The most common example I can site is people who say their holy book is evidence for the existence of God but when are challenged retreat to "its just my faith" . If one presents the validity of their perception of God on evidence they don't have a recourse of faith to fall back on. The two are mutually exclusive. It is a fundamental idea in theological philosophy.

In short (too late for that I know! ) many of them haven't evaluated the paradigms deeply enough on while they perceive a God to exist enough to know which components are compatible with which and which are not.

In relating it back to your science example----if one believes in a soul than they reject by mutually exclusive proposition the biological definitions of life and death which are in conflict with that but if you read enough threads here you can see theist, catholics, protestants, mostly who argue in the science /vs religion threads that they are in complete agreement with biological ideas -- without taking the time to attempt to find a way to reconcile the question of duality and its compatibility with biology.

In summary the models some theists construe are ridiculous and unworkable but are still propagated and presented with little introspection into the models themselves.

 

[Scuba Pete]

What Do You Feel Is Wrong with Theism?

Theists.

 

[Jeremiah]

First, while skepticism is a useful compass, it's not a discoverer of new or higher realities (truths).

"Doubt is the vestibule which all must pass, before they can enter into the temple of truth." - Charles Caleb Colton

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Isn't skepticism about suspending judgement when no sufficient evidence is available?

Yes, up to a point. That's what makes it a useful tool. But sometimes decisions must be made without sufficient evidence.

Here's an example I used in another thread, one that I personally experienced with respect to cancer.

Option 1 is effective, but has side-effects. Option 2 doesn't have the side-effects, but all the information pertaining to its effectiveness is not yet available. Option 3 isn't quite as effective, but doesn't have the side-effects. Option 4 is to wait for all the information is available for option 2. Option 5 is not to choose, which is itself a decision. What do YOU do?

Athiesm (option 5) says "none of the above"; agnosticism (option 4) says "I can't choose because I don't have enough information to make a completely informed choice." But because time is of the essence, both are effectively making the same decision. To not choose is to choose along with the atheist.

Theism says one must have eyes trained to the task; atheism says there is nothing to see; agnosticism says since it is unsure, there's no sense in going to the trouble of training the eyes. No amount of sophistry (nuance) will relieve one of this dilemma. There comes a point where you have to choose. "Come and see for yourself," the yogis say. But you need tools adequate to the task and the only way to get them is to step out from behind the shield of skepticism.

 

[Yerda]

It's a comfortable shield to hide behind when confronted with new and unfamiliar concepts and a spear to chuck at your enemies who have experience but no tangible evidence.

It is inconsistent for people (atheists) to revere the direct observations of one group (scientists) and dismiss those of another (theists). If that is scepticism I'm no sceptic.

 

[Papersock]

Here's an example I used in another thread, one that I personally experienced with respect to cancer.

Option 1 is effective, but has side-effects. Option 2 doesn't have the side-effects, but all the information pertaining to its effectiveness is not yet available. Option 3 isn't quite as effective, but doesn't have the side-effects. Option 4 is to wait for all the information is available for option 2. Option 5 is not to choose, which is itself a decision. What do YOU do?

Athiesm (option 5) says "none of the above"; agnosticism (option 4) says "I can't choose because I don't have enough information to make a completely informed choice." But because time is of the essence, both are effectively making the same decision. To not choose is to choose along with the atheist.

I'm not sure I understand your example. How is atheism like not choosing?

 

[Charity]

I figured the thread about atheism was doing so well, I'd see if people wanted to comment the other way. What do you think?

Matt :slap: how could anything be wrong with being a theist? You know that I am not one of those that like to beat you over the head :bonk: or thump you with my :bible:Could we at least be classified into categories. 1 Theists that we can tolerate 2 Thiests they we cannot tolerate....

Could I please be put in the #1 category?

:curtsy: Charity

 

[Magic Man]

Matt :slap: how could anything be wrong with being a theist? You know that I am not one of those that like to beat you over the head :bonk: or thump you with my :bible:Could we at least be classified into categories. 1 Theists that we can tolerate 2 Thiests they we cannot tolerate....

Could I please be put in the #1 category?

:curtsy: Charity

Sometimes.

 

[BucephalusBB]

blablabla.....options, atheists don't choose etc..dribble another bla....

You are comparing religion with cancer or..?

 

[Father Heathen]

The only kind of theism I detest is the rigid, dogmatic fundamentalist kind; mindless automatons that seek to impose their beliefs upon others and exert control over them. Oh, and use their faith as a justification for acts of injustices and atrocities.

To think, question and doubt is much healthier than blind obedience and unsubstantiated certainty. The latter of which requires us to wallow in willful ignorance and self-deceit.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Could I please be put in the #1 category?

This is the real problem. People want to pigeon hole others, not out of necessity, but out of sheer convenience. It's easy to ascribe all manner of ill will if you can put a person in a specific box. There are a number of theists who do this to atheists, as well as a number of atheists who do this to theists.

I can learn from about anyone UNTIL their bias starts to kick in. THEN my back gets rigid as I feel I am being attacked. It would be well for both sides to not categorically ascribe negatives to the other side. There is no need to equate communism or ego to atheism, just as there is no need to say that atheists are ignorant haters.

 

[Smoke]

One of the problems with some theisms is exemplified by a post on another thread:

Look i told you that it is mentioned in your own scripture anyone who blasphemes shall certainly be put to death . You take oath on the bible then you ought to live by it if not you are not a christian.

Plus there is no Islamic tribe who beleive in the Devil as God, we beleieve in the Devil as the Accursed Devil, understand that mate.

Yes they Ought to kill those who blasphemies but as i have said previously alot of Christians they dont even know the whole bible they just know John 3:16. and they only focus on John 3:16. There have been people killed for heresy, socery, blasphmey, by the church. but its only the Christians today are not really Christians. They are only beleivers of Christ but not the followers of Christ.

Although I don't adhere to any theism, my main objection is to dogmatic and exclusive theisms, and especially those that teach the right or even the obligation of believers to enforce their beliefs on others.