Writing Forums

Writing Forums is a privately-owned, community managed writing environment. We provide an unlimited opportunity for writers and poets of all abilities, to share their work and communicate with other writers and creative artists. We offer an experience that is safe, welcoming and friendly, regardless of your level of participation, knowledge or skill. There are several opportunities for writers to exchange tips, engage in discussions about techniques, and grow in your craft. You can also participate in forum competitions that are exciting and helpful in building your skill level. There's so much more for you to explore!

So Confuse

Today I met someone who believes it is impossible for a theist to accept theism as true based on logic. No, I do not mean he simply found any arguments for theism unconvincing. That would have been just fine by me. He quite literally believed that there are zero arguments--even bad ones--used by theists as a basis for their beliefs. I am not exaggerating. I went through great pains, and great lengths of time, to make sure I was understanding him correctly.

In the end I asked him: "You are honestly telling me there has never been anyone in the entire history of humanity who has looked at a body of evidence (however flawed) or followed a train of logic (whether misguided or not), and concluded that theism is true and naturalism false?"

His answer: "Yes."

I was dumbfounded. I didn't know what to say. It wasn't about me trying to convince him my beliefs were correct. It was about trying to convince him that he couldn't possibly think it reasonable to take it upon himself to tell every theist who ever existed that they didn't employ logic, even bad logic. He wouldn't even accept that theists used bad logic. Only no logic.

The length that some people will go to to remain ignorant astounds me.

Humanity makes me sad sometimes.

Comments

There is nothing that you can do or say that would alter his position. He sounds like a devout or radical atheist. (a religion unto itself). He probably expounds that scientific proofs and methods concerning the existence of an "Other" can not be proven through this method therefore the logical conclusion is that all belief in a Theistic conclusion based not on the logic of science is magical thinking and illogical.

Ask him if he thinks it logical to accept the theories of multi-universes, quantum and string theory or dark matter. Much of these theories are not logical based or mathematically conclusive. I state that this too is magical thinking (I'm a magical thinking fool;))

Point being this fellow lacks intuition, imagination and is full of cockeyed logic and a tired mind.


my warmest
bob
 
Logic will never be a universal constant; what we currently accept as logic may very well be nonsense in a thousand years. We may be laughed at for thinking that nothing can travel at light speed. Galileo, I think, thought the male testicles were weights and as the male got older, they strained the body and their voices became deeper. Greeks also thought the uterus moves around the female body. To them, it seemed quite "logical" given their knowledge at the time.

For the record, I am an atheist. However, asserting either of the absolutes (There is definitely a god without a doubt it's true; and there is definitely no god without a doubt he/she doesn't exist) of either position is foolish, in my opinion. I personally believe everyone should tag agnostic to whatever they believe (be it theism or atheism) because, in truth, no one can know; no matter how much logic or what quality of logic one uses, no one can absolutely know.

Besides, which theistic belief's logic was he denying? Einstein was a deist and most consider him a logical thinker. While religious scripture is often ridden with holes, they're derived from logical terms: the world is here, therefore it must have come into being somehow; the sun is there, therefore it must have come into being somehow; I can talk and we're different from other animals, therefore something must have made us to be different. They're still employing human reasoning. They didn't have carbon dating two millennia ago, so they used what knowledge they had to logically derive their theories. Naturalism barely existed before Darwin (as far as I know), and even after Darwin published On the Origin of Species (which was sold out before it even went into print) it never really shook theistic belief; people seemed to have accepted it, praised him and integrated it with their beliefs.

Whoever he may be, he seems to have jumped onto the social bandwagon, hollering "atheist!" after finishing his copy of The God Delusion. He seems to derive his position not from evidence or lack thereof, but from the "popularity" of militant atheism, verbally punching every theist he picks up with his 'atheist-sense'. It's become almost a fad (as much as growing a beard) lately.

Regards,
John Galt.
 
Being part of the Ministry for years I have found that it is impossible to argue any religion. I have found that when you are looking for answers "when someone dies, when a tragedy happens or any other life's events cause anxiety" that it is pretty normal for people to reach out to God. I can only share what I know first hand, what effect a relationship with Him has done for me, I also turn to my work shop manual the bible. I can not prove my faith to someone who is not interested, anymore than someone could prove their dis-belief to me.

Far to often men seek to make their ideology more credible to themselves by convincing others that their thoughts on the topic are correct.

I doubt I am the norm, I am glad to share, obligated if asked. Do I need to tell you that "You need this" For me personally not in the least. Some men seek God, other have some interest, some none at all. I do know that when horrible things do happen that sometimes those that swore there was not God, often look to him for an explanation.

The saying that there are no Atheists in fox holes has always hits home with me. Having comforted many when they go through tough times and seeing the effects have never created any doubts in my mind as to what is real for me.
 
Some aspects of logic, as pertain to tautologies, must be constant, or one descends into meaninglessness.
"A bachelor is an unmarried man." This is true regardless of it being the dawn or the end of the universe, for to deny it is to require that one changes the meaning of the term bachelor. While 'bachelor' means what it currently means, it is eternally false to say of the man signified by the term that he is also married.
What one can induce from such tautologies of meaning is another matter.
 
we all believe what we want to and humanity is weird dude.....i liked the way you approached the situation and your response to it all..man if only more people were like you.
 
Great Scott!

I didn't think anyone would read, let alone respond to this. Was just venting some frustrations.

Looks like there's a fairly intelligent group of people in my comment section, though. So faith in humanity = restored.
 

Blog entry information

Author
Gyarachu
Views
52
Comments
6
Last update

More entries in Creative Writing 101

Top