![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Okay. So, I've got a lot of theists on my friends list, a lot of atheists, a lot of agnostics, a lot of people who shift from category to category, a lot of people whose beliefs don't quite fit into any of those boxes. Even some people to whom the whole question is basically boring.
And the vast, vast majority of you, whatever your personal feelings about the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, are very live-and-let-live about other people's beliefs. So long as their beliefs are not being used to attack or smother yours, or anyone else's, it's no big deal. A lot of you get real upset when people DO use their particular beliefs, or, less frequently-but-nonetheless-occasionally nonbeliefs to hammer on other people -- and I'm one of those who does -- but, so long as people aren't using their theism or atheism to hurt other people, I think the vast majority of us are pretty cool with whatever anyone else does or does not believe.
But I have watched atheist/theist flamewars on the Internet occasionally. And while it can be vaguely amusing, it gets old real fast.
See, I'm a bit of an amateur theologian, philosopher, and rhetorician. I don't claim to be GOOD at any of these things, but I enjoy them. And watching most atheists and theists debate, well, it's like someone who really enjoys chess watching two people sitting down at the board and trying to remember how the little horsies move.
The truth is -- in any theist/atheist debate, whomever gets to define the term "God" wins.
See, I can define "god" as "a being that lives on the top of that mountain over there, who looks just like a human, but somehow better, who has a physical existence and a physical location." And then we can go over to the top of the mountain, and we can look, and see that there's no physical human-like-but-better being living there, and the atheist side takes it.
Or, I can define "god" as "the phenomenon of self-replication, i.e., life, along with the phenomenon of self-awareness, along with the altruistic impulse (even if it's an emergent behavior), along with the existence of the sensation of joy." And if I define "god" that way, the theist side wins, because all of those things are observably extant. If "god" is those things, we can SEE that all those things exist, therefore God exists.
Further: I can start from either of those definitions, and tweak them without changing anything truly essential in their nature until I reach some sort of definition that the majority of people would recognize as being what they call "God." I can start from EITHER of those sides -- and not lose the fundamental nature of either of those sides.
I can argue for a God that most people would recognize as God, and prove that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe in, or just as absolutely ridiculous to disbelieve in. It all depends on which of those two points you start from.
Whoever defines the terms, wins the argument.
And that is why theist/atheist arguments are, generally speaking, simple foolishness.
And the vast, vast majority of you, whatever your personal feelings about the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods, are very live-and-let-live about other people's beliefs. So long as their beliefs are not being used to attack or smother yours, or anyone else's, it's no big deal. A lot of you get real upset when people DO use their particular beliefs, or, less frequently-but-nonetheless-occasionally nonbeliefs to hammer on other people -- and I'm one of those who does -- but, so long as people aren't using their theism or atheism to hurt other people, I think the vast majority of us are pretty cool with whatever anyone else does or does not believe.
But I have watched atheist/theist flamewars on the Internet occasionally. And while it can be vaguely amusing, it gets old real fast.
See, I'm a bit of an amateur theologian, philosopher, and rhetorician. I don't claim to be GOOD at any of these things, but I enjoy them. And watching most atheists and theists debate, well, it's like someone who really enjoys chess watching two people sitting down at the board and trying to remember how the little horsies move.
The truth is -- in any theist/atheist debate, whomever gets to define the term "God" wins.
See, I can define "god" as "a being that lives on the top of that mountain over there, who looks just like a human, but somehow better, who has a physical existence and a physical location." And then we can go over to the top of the mountain, and we can look, and see that there's no physical human-like-but-better being living there, and the atheist side takes it.
Or, I can define "god" as "the phenomenon of self-replication, i.e., life, along with the phenomenon of self-awareness, along with the altruistic impulse (even if it's an emergent behavior), along with the existence of the sensation of joy." And if I define "god" that way, the theist side wins, because all of those things are observably extant. If "god" is those things, we can SEE that all those things exist, therefore God exists.
Further: I can start from either of those definitions, and tweak them without changing anything truly essential in their nature until I reach some sort of definition that the majority of people would recognize as being what they call "God." I can start from EITHER of those sides -- and not lose the fundamental nature of either of those sides.
I can argue for a God that most people would recognize as God, and prove that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe in, or just as absolutely ridiculous to disbelieve in. It all depends on which of those two points you start from.
Whoever defines the terms, wins the argument.
And that is why theist/atheist arguments are, generally speaking, simple foolishness.