The best argument for and against theism

[epronovost]

What do you think are the best and worst arguments for and against theism?

I personally would say the best argument against most forms of theism is the problem of evil. I think that when you look down at people who abandoned religion or had a crisis of faith and vacillated between the two, the problem of evil almost always rear it's head up. There is indeed something wrong in worshiping an entity that is often cruel and capricious and something even more wrong in looking at someone who lost a loved one and believing that the world is better without those they lost. There is a reason why monotheistic faiths spend so much time trying to explain the inherent injustice and cruelty of human existence.

As far as best argument, I would say it's the idea of divine love. This idea that no matter how painful, lonely and cruel life is, there will be someone to love you despite all of your flaws and mistakes. Furthermore that love is coming from the single most important virtuous creature imaginable. You are not just loved unconditionally by some random person (even though such love is already extraordinarily precious), but by the most important person; someone who can give worth to everything. This is certainly a very compelling idea.

[Rhythmcs]

Lots of ways to parse this. I think the best argument for a god is plantingas modal ontological argument. Not because I find it compelling, but because there's nothing obviously wrong with it. The best argument for theism as an issue of private belief in personal and intervening gods that we often do apprehend the world that way. That consequential items in our lives appear to have the hallmarks of human-alike activity. The best argument for theism as a practice outside of any factual concerns being the need we (seem) to all have to make hopeful appeals in hopeless situations.

Arguments against...all coming from anti-theism. Not really or just or even that the belief is false or a superstitious one. That when we set out to do and experience these things from that viewpoint....which I think in the main is not intended to yield horrific outcomes - they inevitably do yield those outcomes as a consequence of perceiving the divine as human-alike. We carry in all of our own very human faults and declare them the fabric of reality - give them the imprimatur of goodness and decency and righteousness. We begin to think that our human(alike) proclamations and ideas and human(alike) outbursts of joy and vengeance and jealousy and love are The Final Word and The Right Way, -because- that's the way gods are.

Theists, even when or as they have a very dim view of humanity, don't tend to extend that dim view to human alike gods - so it's just an easy workaround for doing our worst. From the other end... if we didn't possess such a dim view (which I think is unwarranted)... we might end up conceiving of gods that are or could be even worse than us - or worse because they are not better than us but are more powerful. That's how we find ourselves groveling at the feet of imaginary tyrants even as we think they are tyrants and even if we come up with elaborate religious or magical rules to skirt their spheres of influence and authority.

[pythagorean]

What do you think are the best and worst arguments for and against theism?

The best argument against it is that some folks take way too long to say the Rosary.

snip----

Blacks were notorious for their militantly anti-Christian outbursts, which were macabrely ritualized in the sine qua non of slavery, flogging; at such times it was not unusual for the victim to cry, "I denounce God!" (Medina, 1889:106; cf., Palmer, 1975). They also destroyed symbols of the church—hardly surprising in a society in which, for example, a woman slave owner might measure the duration of a flogging by the time it took her to recite her rosary (Meiklejohn, 1968:216).

snip----

The best argument for it is that you get every Sunday off, as well as feast days, at least one a week, and so they have all the best parties.

snip----

In 1771 the Bishop of Popayan, capital of the Cauca region of southwest Colombia, complained bitterly that his attempts to catechize the slaves and prevent their being worked on Sundays and feast days encountered the firm opposition of the slave owners. He believed that clerical mine speculators were identifying too closely with the exploiters of their slave flocks (King, 1939:217). The right of the slaves to rest on feast days, of which there was at least one a week in addition to Sundays, was hotly disputed by the Cauca mine owners during the eighteenth century. Yet, in a study of the health of slaves in New Granada, David Lee Chandler concludes that for many slaves the Church's insistence on rest days "must have . . . prolonged their lives" (1972:238). On these days they could also earn the wherewithal to buy their freedom, but many Cauca slave owners responded by reducing the food and clothing ration of the slaves. In these circumstances the feast days may have inclined the slaves favorably toward the Church and added a religious rationale to their opposition to their masters.

snip----

The Devil and Commodity Fetishism in South America

Michael T. Taussig

PDF: https://selforganizedseminar.files.wordp...modity.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Devil-Commodity-F...0807871338

snip---------

Part II: The Plantations of the Cauca Valley in Colombia

CHAPTER 3: Slave Religion and the Rise of the Free Peasantry



(HD) GRUPO CANALÓN DE TIMBIQUÍ / CUANDO VIRE A MI DIOS (ALABADO) : AMPLIFICADO

[Bucky Ball]

(Plantigna is a total idiot.) I can't believe they paid this fool to actually teach at his level, for even 5 minutes.

There are no good arguments for any of the gods.
There is not even a coherent argumant or definition of a "god".
All they are, are ancient ideas to explain the unknown.
They are totally absent from the world we observe.

We know, historically, that in general the "god" people speak of and reference today, is the "god" of the Bible. That god, is a Babylonian deity, from their pantheon, one of the sons of the chief Babylonian deity, (El Elyon, ... ie Yahweh Sabaoth).

I don't allow one ancient mythology to define reality for myself.
The answer to that bullshit ..... is education.

[Dexta]

Congenital birth defects. Game over.

[Minimalist]

I can't think of a single good reason for it.  There is the human desire to bullshit itself but that is hardly "good."

Bad reasons abound.

[airportkid]

The best feature of theism is that it can instill a temporary sense of well-being indistinguishable from what heroin does for you, but with the same deleterious effects.

A best feature of atheism is you drastically reduce the chances of banging your shin or breaking your sacroiliac or splitting your skull against the sharp edges of reality, among a whole host of other benefits psychological and sociological.

[Dancefortwo]

Argument for theism:

Beautiful architecture....

  







Argument against:

Human suffering.....

[pattylt]

I’m not able to think of any good reason for theism. Every “good” one might try to come up with can be accomplished without superstition and frankly, that’s what theism is. Humans were highly superstitious for thousands of years and gods fit into that mindset quite nicely. Since the Enlightenment and the scientific method, we’ve reduced any deities to small little god of the gaps because it’s really hard for some people to just say, “I don’t know”. Any society with good education just hasn’t a real need to cling to ancient superstitions.

The simple answer for the reason for atheism is…evidence and the lack of it.

[Inkubus]

The best argument against: there are no sound logical arguments for.

The best argument for: it allows people to shirk their responsibilities.

'It's in the lap of the gods, heaven only knows, beyond human control'. And the rest of the vacuous piffle. In effect, what these people are saying is; I refuse to see the world for what it is, I am incapable of seeing the beauty and wonder in the world because I'm too lazy to think.

Christianity is the biggest disaster in human history.

[Dānu]

I personally would say the best argument against most forms of theism is the problem of evil. I think that when you look down at people who abandoned religion or had a crisis of faith and vacillated between the two, the problem of evil almost always rear it's head up. There is indeed something wrong in worshiping an entity that is often cruel and capricious and something even more wrong in looking at someone who lost a loved one and believing that the world is better without those they lost. There is a reason why monotheistic faiths spend so much time trying to explain the inherent injustice and cruelty of human existence.

Which PoE, the inductive version or the deductive version? Regardless, this sounds like an argument against a specific range of theisms.

It's important to distinguish between theism generally and specific ones as the PoE may not even apply.

[epronovost]

I personally would say the best argument against most forms of theism is the problem of evil. I think that when you look down at people who abandoned religion or had a crisis of faith and vacillated between the two, the problem of evil almost always rear it's head up. There is indeed something wrong in worshiping an entity that is often cruel and capricious and something even more wrong in looking at someone who lost a loved one and believing that the world is better without those they lost. There is a reason why monotheistic faiths spend so much time trying to explain the inherent injustice and cruelty of human existence.

Which PoE, the inductive version or the deductive version?  Regardless, this sounds like an argument against a specific range of theisms.

It's important to distinguish between theism generally and specific ones as the PoE may not even apply.

I did mention that this is a problem much more specific for monotheistic faiths. It's not much of a problem for people who believe there are multiple deities including malevolent ones even though they don't worship these. As for which version of the problem of evil? It doesn't matter either are valid; the distinction is mostly one of formulation in a more formal setting, not the sort of distinction that really matters in daily life reflection.

[Dānu]

I would argue that the best arguments against theism is the multiplicity of religions and the demographic distribution of belief (children follow the religion of their parents).

The strongest argument for theism, specifically Judeo-Christian theisms, is presuppositionalism and TAG. That may be more an approach than an argument.

[Minimalist]

OT God v NT God.





Something seems amiss.

[brewerb]

Religion gave us the x-mas tree and Easter bunny, what's not to like?

[Cavebear]

What do you think are the best and worst arguments for and against theism?

I personally would say the best argument against most forms of theism is the problem of evil. I think that when you look down at people who abandoned religion or had a crisis of faith and vacillated between the two, the problem of evil almost always rear it's head up. There is indeed something wrong in worshiping an entity that is often cruel and capricious and something even more wrong in looking at someone who lost a loved one and believing that the world is better without those they lost. There is a reason why monotheistic faiths spend so much time trying to explain the inherent injustice and cruelty of human existence.

As far as best argument, I would say it's the idea of divine love. This idea that no matter how painful, lonely and cruel life is, there will be someone to love you despite all of your flaws and mistakes. Furthermore that love is coming from the single most important virtuous creature imaginable. You are not just loved unconditionally by some random person (even though such love is already extraordinarily precious), but by the most important person; someone who can give worth to everything. This is certainly a very compelling idea.

When you say "crisis of faith", it sort of gives you away as a superstitious faith-believer. Which eliminates you from factual discussion. Equally when you speak of "divine love". "Divine" assumes the existence of a divinity. I don't see any evidence of one. I'd love to see some. Then I might be able to expect to see unicorns, too.

I have said before that a deity could easily command our attention (and faith?) by sending a flaming message across the sky "I am God and I exist and you better start believing in ME".

But that would defeat the "faith" part of belief, and believers can't have that. LOL!

[airportkid]

I have said before that a deity could easily command our attention (and faith?) by sending a flaming message across the sky "I am God and I exist and you better start believing in ME".  

Some might find that sort of display convincing but others would immediately suspect it an effect accomplished by sky writing, a technological reality just about 100 years old, and combined with advanced pyrotechnics could make a very spooky, terrifying display any magician would be proud of.

I don't think it's possible to imagine a phenomenon where the ONLY possible explanation would be a deity.  Just the sheer fact a human brain could conjure it means other means of achieving it could be conjured too.

If I saw something beyond my ability to explain, the LAST explanation I'd consider is that a deity was involved.

[no one]

For:
1) Fear
II) Arrogance
C) Vanity
*) Ignorance

Against:
1) Rationality

[Inkubus]

What do you think are the best and worst arguments for and against theism?

I personally would say the best argument against most forms of theism is the problem of evil. I think that when you look down at people who abandoned religion or had a crisis of faith and vacillated between the two, the problem of evil almost always rear it's head up. There is indeed something wrong in worshiping an entity that is often cruel and capricious and something even more wrong in looking at someone who lost a loved one and believing that the world is better without those they lost. There is a reason why monotheistic faiths spend so much time trying to explain the inherent injustice and cruelty of human existence.

As far as best argument, I would say it's the idea of divine love. This idea that no matter how painful, lonely and cruel life is, there will be someone to love you despite all of your flaws and mistakes. Furthermore that love is coming from the single most important virtuous creature imaginable. You are not just loved unconditionally by some random person (even though such love is already extraordinarily precious), but by the most important person; someone who can give worth to everything. This is certainly a very compelling idea.

When you say "crisis of faith", it sort of gives you away as a superstitious faith-believer.  Which eliminates you from factual discussion.  Equally when you speak of "divine love".  "Divine" assumes the existence of a divinity.  I don't see any evidence of one.  I'd love to see some.  Then I might be able to expect to see unicorns, too.

I have said before that a deity could easily command our attention (and faith?) by sending a flaming message across the sky "I am God and I exist and you better start believing in ME".  

But that would defeat the "faith" part of belief, and believers can't have that.  LOL!

Cavebear, I'm sure this has been suggested before now, but you really should read posts more than once before replying to them.

[Cavebear]

I have said before that a deity could easily command our attention (and faith?) by sending a flaming message across the sky "I am God and I exist and you better start believing in ME".  

Some might find that sort of display convincing but others would immediately suspect it an effect accomplished by sky writing, a technological reality just about 100 years old, and combined with advanced pyrotechnics could make a very spooky, terrifying display any magician would be proud of.

I don't think it's possible to imagine a phenomenon where the ONLY possible explanation would be a deity.  Just the sheer fact a human brain could conjure it means other means of achieving it could be conjured too.

If I saw something beyond my ability to explain, the LAST explanation I'd consider is that a deity was involved.

I think "flaming messages across the sky" would exceed our current "sky-writing" ability. But I understand that alien technology could surpass our current abilities. I read a sci-fi book once (I think it was called 'At The 7th Level') where the protagonist had a very high-tech suit that allowed him to appear and act as a deity to a developing humanoid-type species. And
“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”. But flaming letters in the sky would be pretty impressive.

[Cavebear]

When you say "crisis of faith", it sort of gives you away as a superstitious faith-believer.  Which eliminates you from factual discussion.  Equally when you speak of "divine love".  "Divine" assumes the existence of a divinity.  I don't see any evidence of one.  I'd love to see some.  Then I might be able to expect to see unicorns, too.

I have said before that a deity could easily command our attention (and faith?) by sending a flaming message across the sky "I am God and I exist and you better start believing in ME".  

But that would defeat the "faith" part of belief, and believers can't have that.  LOL!

Cavebear, I'm sure this has been suggested before now, but you really should read posts more than once before replying to them.

Sometimes I exaggerate a point to make a point. People sometimes have beliefs/assumptions deep in their minds that they don't even realize (I might have some too). I think an argument supported by "divine love" and "crisis of faith" should cause them to consider why they made those arguments. No offense meant, but if someone uses terms like those in support of an argument, they might want to ask themselves "why".

[Inkubus]

Read it again! It doesn't say what you think it says.

Or is it me that's losing it?

[Cavebear]

Read it again! It doesn't say what you think it says.

Or is it me that's losing it?

You might be. It wasn't addressed to anyone in particular.

[pythagorean]

(duplicate post deleted)

There ought to be a button for that!

[pythagorean]

When you say "crisis of faith", it sort of gives you away as a superstitious faith-believer.  Which eliminates you from factual discussion.

The notion that one can assign an identity to others in order to dismiss their views from consideration is culturally based, just like religion itself.

I've seen this referred to as "identity politics", and it has a long, long history. And remember, it takes effort not to accidentally become a cult.

Suspend Your Disbelief (or, how to ruin everything in 7 steps)