10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[gc1765]

I also pointed out that science is not always clear cut. For example, the science of climate change is far from proven and asks people to take a leap of faith.

The difference is, most scientists are not absolutely certain that they are correct. They are not dogmatic the way some theists are. If evidence comes along to disprove a theory, that theory is modified. That is not the case sometimes in religion. Some theists will come up with any wild explanation so long as fits with their dogma, such as claiming that the bones of human ancestors were put there by God to test our faith. If they hadn't already made up their mind that God exists, they never would have come to such a conclusion.

[gc1765]

Everyone has metaphysical beliefs. Believing that there is nothing more that the physical world is a metaphysical belief.

What about people who don't believe in the metaphysical, but also don't believe that metaphysical beliefs are necessarily false. IOW, they are agnostic with respect to metaphysical beliefs.

As an aside, what exactly is a metaphysical belief? In my mind there is only what is true and what is false. If God turns out to exist, then believing in him would not be a metaphysical belief, because God would be part of the physical world.

[Riverwind]

The difference is, most scientists are not absolutely certain that they are correct. They are not dogmatic the way some theists are.

I have met some extremely open minded Christians who accept that their beliefs must adapt to the times. I have heard many extremely dogmatic scientists who absolutely reject all evidence that undermines their pet theories.

The tendency toward closed minded dogma is a human failing and not an attribute confined to theists.

That last statement is the reason I got into this dicussion. I have gotten tired of the anti-theist rhetoric come from self-styled atheists.

[gc1765]

I have heard many extremely dogmatic scientists who absolutely reject all evidence that undermines their pet theories...

Then they are probably not very good scientists.

In general, I find scientists to be much less dogmatic than theists (of course there are going to be exceptions).

[Figleaf]

Not if they don't have metaphysical beliefs.

Everyone has metaphysical beliefs. Believing that there is nothing more that the physical world is a metaphysical belief.

No, it's not.*

Virtually every major religion including secular humanism and atheism...

Again with the meaningless words!

Secular humanism may be a belief system, but it's not a religion. And neither is atheism. That's what 'secular' and 'atheism' mean. Not being religion is the very point and essence of the words. Your statement there make even less sense than to say "All the world's elephants, including the mice and birds ..." or maybe more like "Everyone alive today, including the dead...".

... have an moral framework that is virtually identical.

Simply reciting the same assertion that has already been shown to be wrong and false is not only pointless, it's also somewhat insulting.

Theism and atheism are opposites by definition. Atheism is constructed as the opposite of theism, in terms of what the whole of theism means.

They are opposite at one level because they do describe different types of belief systems. However they still share traits that are common to all belief systems.

Well, FINALLY some remotely sensible qualification has entered your rhetorical toolkit. That MAY be possible, depending on what traits you are refering to.

[Riverwind]

What about people who don't believe in the metaphysical, but also don't believe that metaphysical beliefs are necessarily false. IOW, they are agnostic with respect to metaphysical beliefs.

Metaphysics addresses questions such as:

What is the nature of reality?

What is mankind's place in the universe?

Are colors objective or subjective?

Does the world exist outside the mind?

What is the nature of objects, events, places?

No one can construct any sort of moral framework without first addressing the fundamental questions of metaphysics. You must, at a minimum, choose to believe that there is no god or that god is not relevant.

As an aside, what exactly is a metaphysical belief? In my mind there is only what is true and what is false.

Your metaphysical beliefs are the assumptions that you start with and use to evaluate what is true and what is false.

[gc1765]

Your metaphysical beliefs are the assumptions that you start with and use to evaluate what is true and what is false.

What is true and what is false (presumably) does not depend on how what I use to evaluate what is true.

The only assumption I start with is that I don't know anything for certain....although I could be wrong about that too

[Riverwind]

Secular humanism may be a belief system, but it's not a religion.

Has a much broader meaning than you claim. I find it ironic that you have no problem accepting that marriage can apply to same sex couples but you refuse to accept a broader definition of religion.

... have an moral framework that is virtually identical.

Simply reciting the same assertion that has already been shown to be wrong and false is not only pointless, it's also somewhat insulting.

You have shown no such thing. All you have done is claim it is false.

All religious beliefs systems agree that murder, theft and deception are wrong. All religious belief systems allow for exceptions in order to prevent harm to yourself or others. All systems agree that people who break these rules must be punished however there are some differences on what constitutes an acceptable punishment.

All religious belief systems also agree that all humans have a duty to help others and that engaging in any activity to excess is undesirable. There are some differences when it comes to the rules regarding sexual behavoir, however, most religions promote monogamous relationships.

All religious belief systems define a metaphysical foundation that they use the justify their beliefs. In some cases this foundation presumes a deity. In other cases, it presumes that there is no deity or it is irrelevant.

I know you want to point to irrelevant details like the names of the gods or the specific rituals practiced. However, those differences are largely irrelevant when you look at the effect religion has on the moral framework of individuals.

[Riverwind]

The only assumption I start with is that I don't know anything for certain....although I could be wrong about that too

Which is about the same for me. Your statement is a statement of metaphysical beliefs even though it lacks the ponderous philosophical jargon that one stereotypically associates with metaphysics.

The concept of the number zero was considered an innovation because most people at the time believed that it was impossible to have a number that represents nothing. It was a contradiction in terms and non-sensical. For that reason, I can understand why people have a problem accepting that choosing to not believe in a deity a religious belief.

[gc1765]

For that reason, I can understand why people have a problem accepting that choosing to not believe in a deity a religious belief.

I'd call it a belief, yes, but I wouldn't call it a religious belief.

That is because apparently we have different ideas about what the word religion means. To me, the definition of the word religion (or faith) is essentially belief without evidence. In that case, I wouldn't call my beliefs religious. You might have a different definition of the word religion, but when you say that word, that is what I think of, and what many other people (including, most likely, some on this forum) believe, and probably explains why there is some confusion in this thread.

But if you want to belive that my beliefs are "religious", wouldn't that make every belief religious? And if so, isn't the term "religious beliefs" redundant?

[Riverwind]

But if you want to believe that my beliefs are "religious", wouldn't that make every belief religious? And if so, isn't the term "religious beliefs" redundant?

I am using the term religious beliefs to mean metaphysical beliefs. I recognize that I am stretching the term religious beyond what people would normally use it for. However, I don't see any difference between stretching the term marriage to include same sex couples and stretching the term religious to include non-theistic belief systems. I am trying to illustrate that the gap between the theist and non-theist is not as large as some people would like to pretend it is. We all have to develop some metaphysical beliefs to make sense of the world and we should be able to respect the choices that others make. Conflict arises only when people do not respect the choices of others.

[gc1765]

I am trying to illustrate that the gap between the theist and non-theist is not as large as some people would like to pretend it is.

I think the gap is that a theist's beliefs are not based on evidence, whereas a non-theist's beliefs are. I'm not saying that is a large gap, or a small gap, but it's a gap.

We all have to develop some metaphysical beliefs to make sense of the world and we should be able to respect the choices that others make. Conflict arises only when people do not respect the choices of others.

I can agree to that.

I am using the term religious beliefs to mean metaphysical beliefs

If I say that I believe the sky is blue, is that a religious belief? At first glance, no, but the only reason I believe it is blue is because I believe in basing my beliefs on evidence (which is a metaphysical belief). Thus, my belief that the sky is blue is a metaphysical belief.

[Riverwind]

I think the gap is that a theist's beliefs are not based on evidence, whereas a non-theist's beliefs are. I'm not saying that is a large gap, or a small gap, but it's a gap.

Your are using the word evidence to mean something much stronger than it is. People can look at the same evidence and draw completely different conclusions. The debate on climate change is an excellent example of how the concept of developing beliefs based on evidence is quite pliable.

Most theists believe that they do have evidence of god working in their lives. My example of the man with the anger management problem illustrates this. You tried to claim that his evidence of a deity was inconclusive and that more experimentation was required. However, that argument does not change the fact that his beliefs _were_ based on evidence.

[gc1765]

You tried to claim that his evidence of a deity was inconclusive and that more experimentation was required. However, that argument does not change the fact that his beliefs _were_ based on evidence.

Not really: Link

Your example shows that the man put 100% of his faith into something that is certainly not proved through this experiment. It would be fair to say that, after his experience, he could be agnostic with respect to God, and his chances of believing might increase slightly. However, he would be foolish to put 100% of his faith into God as a result of this experiment.

[Riverwind]

Your example shows that the man put 100% of his faith into something that is certainly not proved through this experiment.

Evidence and proofs are two different concepts. You are correct to argue that he does not have proof. However, you cannot argue that he does not have evidence. A lot of science is based on measuring correlation to develop theories. Only some of these theories are ever proved.

However, he would be foolish to put 100% of his faith into God as a result of this experiment.

He would be foolish to extend his faith into areas for which he has no evidence of an effect. For example, he would be foolish to assume he does not need to see a doctor if he broke his arm because his deity would fix it. However, he would be perfectly justified in continuing to use his faith to deal with his anger management problem based on the evidence that he has.

The main problem with the evidence that theists use to justify there beliefs is the lack of repeatability. They may believe that they have evidence of god working in their lives but that does not always mean another person can conduct an experiment and produce the same results.

Unfortunately, it is not always possible to conduct experiments to verify repeatability. This is where many non-theists are forced to rely on faith in science to draw conclusions. The collapse of the WTC towers is an example of this. It is not possible to reconstruct the towers and fly planes into them several times and verify that the aircraft damage impact was, in fact, sufficient to trigger the collapse of the buildings. This lack of conclusive evidence has created a cult of people who insist that the evidence proves that the WTC towers were blown up by the US government.

It is worth noting that theists never disagree with non-theists when conclusions are drawn from 100% repeatable experiments. That is why no theist believes that the sun rotates around the earth anymore. Unfortunately only a small part of our universe can be explained with 100% repeatable experiments. This means we have no choice but to rely on faith if we want to make sense of the world. This is true for theists and non-theists alike.

[gc1765]

You are correct to argue that he does not have proof. However, you cannot argue that he does not have evidence. A lot of science is based on measuring correlation to develop theories. Only some of these theories are ever proved.

Given the 'evidence' he has, I think it's fair to say that if he is a scientist (or bases his beliefs on evidence) he would be agnostic with respect to God. The fact that believing in God always seems to relieve his anger might give him some reason to believe there is a God, but he should also realize that the results are far from conclusive. This happens in science too, but good scientists are not dogmatic. They realize that the more evidence they acquire, the better their chances of their theory being correct, but they can never be 100% sure that they are correct. In the previous example, there is very little evidence for a God (again, correlation does not necessarily mean causation). A scientist would acknowledge that there is a still a good chance that God does not exist, whereas (some) theists takes it as absolute proof of the existence of God

Unfortunately only a small part of our universe can be explained with 100% repeatable experiments. This means we have no choice but to rely on faith if we want to make sense of the world. This is true for theists and non-theists alike.

The difference is, non-theists do not put 100% of their belief in something that can not be explained with 100% repeatable experiments. Thus, they are agnostic with respect to things that require faith.

[Riverwind]

In the previous example, there is very little evidence for a God (again, correlation does not necessarily mean causation). A scientist would acknowledge that there is a still a good chance that God does not exist, whereas (some) theists takes it as absolute proof of the existence of God

I think you are misrepresenting the views many theists. Many people are sloppy when they use the word 'proof' and use it in situations where they only have a hypothesis or a theory. This sloppiness is something that non-theists are equally guilty of. Most theists I have talked to recognize that they do not have proof of god and that they only believe the available evidence is sufficient to justify their faith.

The difference is, non-theists do not put 100% of their belief in something that can not be explained with 100% repeatable experiments. Thus, they are agnostic with respect to things that require faith.

You are again misrepresenting the views of the majority of theists and non-theists. Non-theists frequently place their 100% faith in things that cannot be explained with repeatable experiments (many of the people demanding extreme action in the face of global warming are non-theists). On the other hand, most theists do not 100% rely on their faith in their lives (the Pope still sees a doctor when he is sick).

I think the distinction that your trying to make is artificial and that differences between individuals are much larger that then differences between the groups.

[gc1765]

Most theists I have talked to recognize that they do not have proof of god and that they only believe the available evidence is sufficient to justify their faith.

Fair enough, but technically those people would be considered agnostic. When I say theist, I am talking about the people who are 100% convinced that they are right, and there are plenty of them. (an atheist is 100% convinced that God does not exist, and there are varying levels of agnosticism in between).

You are again misrepresenting the views of the majority of theists and non-theists. Non-theists frequently place their 100% faith in things that cannot be explained with repeatable experiments (many of the people demanding extreme action in the face of global warming are non-theists).

I can not speak for other so-called non-theists, I can only speak for myself. I do not put my 100% faith in things that can not be proven. I can say there is a 50% chance, 90% chance or 99% chance (IMO) that a given theory is correct, depending on the evidence. Anyone who puts 100% of their faith that taking action against global warming is the right thing to do, I would consider them to base their beliefs on faith, yes, but that's not what I would do.

On the other hand, most theists do not 100% rely on their faith in their lives (the Pope still sees a doctor when he is sick).

One can be 100% convinced that God exists, and still believe that God is not going to interfere in their lives (to save the pope when he is sick, for example).

[Figleaf]

Secular humanism may be a belief system, but it's not a religion.

Has a much broader meaning than you claim. I find it ironic that you have no problem accepting that marriage can apply to same sex couples but you refuse to accept a broader definition of religion.

Call me a traditionalist, but I have a problem with trying to use words as if they mean their very opposite.

Why on earth should we accept your definition of religion when it's effect is to thwart the ability to communicate sensibly?

A while ago I asked you a question, twice. If we were to accept your all-encompassingly broad definition for 'religion', what should we call it when we refer to what the rest of us mean by religion?

... have an moral framework that is virtually identical.

Simply reciting the same assertion that has already been shown to be wrong and false is not only pointless, it's also somewhat insulting.

You have shown no such thing. All you have done is claim it is false.

Not me alone. Various others have shown this to you to, but you choose to ignore it. Revisit posts #70, #97-99 (wherein you acknowledge that atheism may base it's 'moral framework' on the greater good while religions base it on God(s)), #112, 120, 130 (implied), 135, 154, 176, 184, 187, and 196, for a start.

Also, there are questions you did not answer at posts 84, 106, 118, 120, 126, 163, 176...

All religious beliefs systems agree that murder, theft and deception are wrong.

All religious beliefs condone all of these under 'mystically special' conditions.

On the other hand, atheism has no means or basis that allows it to posit mystical conditions at all.

So, there's one fundamental difference.

All religious belief systems allow for exceptions in order to prevent harm to yourself or others.

It seems there that you are arguing that there is no difference between religions because they have all found the same set of necessities in encountering human nature.

In that regard, your position seems inordinately reductionist. You are ignoring many known, describable differences in various theologies and in the particulars of life styles they prescribe. It is unclear why similarities that, for the most part are enforced by the environment, should be given emphasis over the differences.

So much for your comparison of religions. As for atheism, it differs more fundamentally from religiously based moralities, as discussed above.

[Riverwind]

Call me a traditionalist, but I have a problem with trying to use words as if they mean their very opposite.

Electrons and positrons are opposites in terms of electric charge but the are still atomic particles. Theism and atheism are opposites when it comes to a deity but they are both religions.

A while ago I asked you a question, twice. If we were to accept your all-encompassingly broad definition for 'religion', what should we call it when we refer to what the rest of us mean by religion?

What you want to call religion is actually theism. That is why the word for people who believe that god does not exist is 'a'-theist and not 'a'-religion.

Your problem is you see 'religion' as a perjorative term which means you absolutely reject idea that it could apply to your own belief system. Religion is not a perjorative term is simply a word that describes a system of metaphysical beliefs.

All religious beliefs condone all of these under 'mystically special' conditions. On the other hand, atheism has no means or basis that allows it to posit mystical conditions at all. So, there's one fundamental difference.

I see no difference between justifying murder or theft in the name of a deity or justifying in the name of a 'greater good' or a 'hierarchy of human rights'.

In that regard, your position seems inordinately reductionist. You are ignoring many known, describable differences in various theologies and in the particulars of life styles they prescribe.

Why are these differences significant?

So much for your comparison of religions. As for atheism, it differs more fundamentally from religiously based moralities, as discussed above.

You have not made your case in the least. You can't seem to accept that developing a moral code on the premise that no god exists is effectively the same as developing a moral code based on the premise that a deity does exist because the outcomes are basically the same.

[Drea]

All bow to the church of science, knowledge and understanding! oooOOoooOOoooo

When is the next meeting and how much is my tithing? Oh yah right -- its in our taxes that go to pay for science to be taught in school so never mind...

I am going to make a shrine to science complete with black skull shaped candles and a dna model... and I will pray to it each and every day.

Yah think the "god of science -- what's the name of THAT god again? -- will grant me three wishes? Yah think? Ooooo I can hardly wait!!

[Riverwind]

Fair enough, but technically those people would be considered agnostic. When I say theist, I am talking about the people who are 100% convinced that they are right, and there are plenty of them. (an atheist is 100% convinced that God does not exist, and there are varying levels of agnosticism in between).

The people I am talking about are still 100% certain that a god exists, however, they recognize that they cannot expect others to share that belief based on the evidence available. Such people usually encourage others to search for their own evidence and come to their own conclusions. I would call this open-minded instead of 'agnostic'.

There are people out there on both sides of the fence that are 100% convinced and spend a lot of time trying to impose thier beliefs on others and cannot comprehend why anyone would believe anything else. There are many self-styled atheists that do this.

One can be 100% convinced that God exists, and still believe that God is not going to interfere in their lives (to save the pope when he is sick, for example).

I don't understand what you mean by putting 100% faith into something. You probably have 100% faith in science in general but recognize its limitations in specific circumstances. Climate change is a good example. You know that it is impossible to be 100% certain about what is going to happen. The same is true of most theists - they have 100% faith in god but recognize that god is not going to help them in many situtations.

[M.Dancer]

The people I am talking about are still 100% certain that a god exists, however, they recognize that they cannot expect others to share that belief based on the evidence available. Such people usually encourage others to search for their own evidence and come to their own conclusions. I would call this open-minded instead of 'agnostic'.

That describes me (almost) 'm 95% sure an enitity exists.....

[gc1765]

The people I am talking about are still 100% certain that a god exists, however, they recognize that they cannot expect others to share that belief based on the evidence available.

If they are 100% certain that a god exists, they are basing that on less than 100% evidence, and so they must make a leap of faith.

I don't understand what you mean by putting 100% faith into something. You probably have 100% faith in science in general but recognize its limitations in specific circumstances.

When I say 100%, I mean 100% certain they are right. I am as close to 100% certain as possible that they sky is blue, but on most issues I am less than 100% certain. You could say I base my beliefs on evidence, but then I wouldn't call that a religious belief any more than you would call believing that the sky is blue is a religious belief.

[Riverwind]

I am as close to 100% certain as possible that they sky is blue

You are 100% certain the sky is blue because the english word 'blue' has been defined to include wavelengths of light reflected by air.

You probably are 100% certain that a rock will fall straight down when dropped because you are 100% certain that the theory of gravity is correct. You can point to a wealth of repeatable scientific experiments that demonstrate the theory of gravity as evidence. However, you don't know why gravity works the way it does so you cannot say for certain that the way gravity works won't change in future. So there is a tiny element of faith required before you drop that rock.

You are much less certain about the effects of global warming, however, all of us are being asked to make personal sacrifices to reduce these possible effects. All of the people advocating that we make these sacrifices believe that the evidence is sufficient to justify making a leap of faith and acting as if global warming is a 100% certainty. You will have to decide if you are willing to make the same leap of faith.

That said, I don't call a leap of faith to believe in global warming a 'religious belief' because it has nothing to do with metaphysics. However, I am using it as a example to illustrate the process of using inconclusive evidence to justify a leap of faith. This is something that people do all of the time and it is incorrect to claim that people who believe in a deity are not basing their beliefs on evidence but people who make similar leaps of faith based on inconclusive evidence are basing their beliefs on evidence.