Not only that, try to prove that atheism (as I argue it, not as you define it) is false. :wink: — 180 Proof
My first Prof. of Religious Studies was old school - religion was a phenomenon to be studied like pinning butterflies to a board. — Wayfarer
Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful. — Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (4 BC – AD 65)
Let me just say I'll make a Muhammad Ali prediction, and knock 180 out in the third round! — 3017amen
The Christians are a blight on the forum — Banno
claiming that god is the answer to a philosophical question
using scripture, revelation or other religious authority in an argument
entering into a philosophical argument in bad faith.
These merit deletion or banning. — Banno
The idea that religion is useful to rulers is often taken to mean that it is a tool for manipulation. It can be, but it is also useful for benevolent rulers who are aware that the wise are few and people need guidance, both for their own good and the good of the regime. An idea that is as old as religion itself. — Fooloso4
I accept such a challenge provided you posit something other than a strawman – e.g. (A) weak/negative atheism ... OR (B) strong/positive atheism ... OR (C) antitheism (my current position, having long since "outgrown" both (A & B)) ... OR (D) ??? — 180 Proof
I suspect that you might consider anyone who rejects your views would not be a suitable moderator. My suggestion is that you just make your argument and let each of us decide for ourselves who makes the stronger argument. — Fooloso4
Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders. — praxis
Anyway, you must be pleased with the results of this wise guidance and the current condition of humanity?
Any moderator agreed on by us both will also be judged by the audience as to whether s/he moderates fairly. The only relevant requirement is 'demonstrably informed, patient, judgment' which a number of members more than show, IMO, like Banno or yourself, among others. I'd accept such a moderator so qualified who is also an avowed believer; why shouldn't my opponent do likewise the other way? Given our particular history, without moderation this debate could descend in to a circle-jerking shitshow real quick which would be of no use to anyone. Just my 2 shekels. — 180 Proof
Sheep did just fine before there were sheep herders.
— praxis
I will leave open the question of whether the sheep are better off with or without a sheep herder. — Fooloso4
I am not pleased with the current condition of humanity but we do not know how things might have been otherwise.
My point is not to defend religion but rather that its useful for controlling the people, and that control is not just for the benefit of those in control. — Fooloso4
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.