Are Atheists Foolish?

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

In Not wanting to go to hell. (p4) (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=99271&page=4) Rev. Timothy G. Muse accepts my challenge for a debate on the assertion that atheists are foolish, presumably for disbelieving in god (I think the actual statement and my challenge were somehow split; I can't find it right now).

We can use this thread to set up the format, make any stipulations, etc.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

I will state up front, due to my volunteering several months ago to establish a Disaster Response ministry in my presbytery, and our gearing up for a presbytery wide banquet on October 4, it may be two weeks or so before this can take place.

This is ideal for me as well, as I am moving at the beginning of October.

I will work with Poodleloving Pessimist...

No big deal, but I prefer my handle to read "Poodle Lovin' Pessimist" when properly punctuated.

[Hedshaker]

I think Rev Timo has his work cut out if he thinks he can demonstrate the "foolishness of atheism" (or whatever) simply by quoting scripture and preaching his beliefs as has been his forte' on these boards thus far. My hope is that this one-on-one debate will force him to address the issuses he tends to ignore on regular threads.

I'm looking forward to this debate and, as I promised Timo, I will do my best to ensure a good audience by posting links on other atheist boards of which I am a member.

Good luck :thumbs:

Orbit

[jdlongmire]

I think it would be wise to agree on the definition of "foolish".

Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Fool´ish
a. 1. Marked with, or exhibiting, folly; void of understanding; weak in intellect; without judgment or discretion; silly; unwise.
I am a very foolish fond old man.
- Shak.
2. Such as a fool would do; proceeding from weakness of mind or silliness; exhibiting a want of judgment or discretion; as, a foolish act.
3. Absurd; ridiculous; despicable; contemptible.
A foolish figure he must make.
- Prior.

WordNet Dictionary
Adj. 1. foolish - devoid of good sense or judgment; "foolish remarks"; "a foolish decision"
Antonyms:
wise - having or prompted by wisdom or discernment; "a wise leader"; "a wise and perceptive comment"
2. foolish - having or revealing stupidity; "ridiculous anserine behavior"; "a dopey answer"; "a dopey kid"; "some fool idea about rewriting authors' books"
Synonyms: dopey, dopy, gooselike, goosey, goosy, anserine

................................................................................

As a nod to the intellects I have encountered on this site, I would recommend sticking with this and not the stupidity definition:

a. 1. Marked with, or exhibiting, folly

or an antonymic definition (opposite of wise)

wise - having or prompted by wisdom or discernment

[ten to the eleventh]

My hope is that this one-on-one debate will force him to address the issuses he tends to ignore on regular threads.

Orbit

I'll put my post under the heading of "mild banter."

I wonder if this board selects for Christians who have a tendency or ability to ignore repeatedly asked direct questions, truly relevant arguments against their beliefs, and total destruction of their claims. I say this not to bash these Christians, but to suggest there may be a selective force at work here. If someone with an opinion directly counter to those on a board he visits actually reads, comprehends, and acknowledges powerful criticisms of positions they desperately cling to, they would likely become very uncomfortable and leave without ever posting.

We've seen a thousand Christians come and defiantly post, challenging the atheists in a way the atheists have seen and responded to ad infinitum, yet they make the challenge nonetheless. Usually, they don't even make it to the end of their own threads, and are never heard from again. They've been selected against.

There are probably hundreds of thousands of other Christians who browse the threads without joining and quickly decide they aren't going to stick there foot in the steel trap. They've been selected against, as well.

The ones that are left, except for the honest seekers and more liberal believers, and I need name no names, are the ones who have a stupendous ability to refuse to recognize when they've been been utterly defeated. Somehow, they soldier on, like the kids when you played "war" and "shot" them 50 times at point blank range who said "Nuh uh, I'm not dead!"

This could be a phenomenon on other boards as well. Perhaps there are ill-prepared atheists receiving a barrage on Christian boards who can manage to deny their obvious defeat.

Is this just "cognitive dissonance?" Is that the trait selected for?

[ten to the eleventh]

Do you think ol' Pascal will rear his very well-worn head early on in the debate?

Seriously though, I think you've got some serious parameters to work out to restrict the topic of the rather vaguely termed working resolution.

[Hedshaker]

Dear jdlongmire,

The term foolishness is simple. If you think we need to define the word "foolishness" to suit xian apologetics then the debate will be a sham. I think we should stick to the meaning of "foolishness" as depicted by Rev Timo here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=1851021#post1851021)

That way we all know what the debate is all about, yes?

Orbit

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Well, we haven't heard from Timothy yet, but the proposed topic seems rather inane to me. The question of whether or not a particular group of people are "fools" or not, doesn't appear to be a subject that can be debated intelligently nor civilly.

Perhaps Timothy could debate the reasons why he thinks God exists. If he believes people are foolish for rejecting those reasons, then he's entitled to his opinion. But that really isn't a subject suitable for intellectual debate for the purposes of this forum.

- NS, FD Moderator

[jdlongmire]

I would recommend:

Atheism vs. Reformed Calvinism on the condition of Man

[Gurdur]

I would recommend:
Atheism vs. Reformed Calvinism on the condition of Man
I don't think "atheism" per se has anything in the slightest to say about the human condition, but personally I would be happy to argue
The Human Condition: Humanism versus Reformed Calvinism
with you

[Jim Lazarus]

Well, we haven't heard from Timothy yet, but the proposed topic seems rather inane to me. The question of whether or not a particular group of people are "fools" or not, doesn't appear to be a subject that can be debated intelligently nor civilly.

Perhaps Timothy could debate the reasons why he thinks God exists. If he believes people are foolish for rejecting those reasons, then he's entitled to his opinion. But that really isn't a subject suitable for intellectual debate for the purposes of this forum.

- NS, FD Moderator

Just a suggestion - but instead of the discussion being about *people* being foolish, perhaps one could make the topic about whether or not a particular position is foolish.

Instead of "Atheists are foolish"

The topic could be: "Is Atheism A Foolish Position?"

Our Reverend friend can go about proving it in two ways - by demonstrating overwhelming proof of the existence of a god - or, if he specifically means to discuss Strong-Atheism - to both present evidence for his case and to show the complete invalidity of SA.

Thus, they could have a civil and intelligent exchange on whether or not an atheistic worldview (or a Strong-Atheistic worldview) was worthy of any consideration whatever.

- Laz

[jdlongmire]

I don't think "atheism" per se has anything in the slightest to say about the human condition, but personally I would be happy to argue
The Human Condition: Humanism versus Reformed Calvinism
with you

What flavor?

http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html

Besides, my proposition is to debate the merits of diametrically opposite worldviews from a presuppositional standpoint and how these worldviews deal with the condition of Man. Humanism can be mutually inclusive without clearly delineating the more reasonable worldview.

[Gurdur]

What flavor?
http://www.jcn.com/humanism.html
Besides, my proposition is to debate the merits of diametrically opposite worldviews from a presuppositional standpoint and how these worldviews deal with the condition of Man. Humanism can be mutually inclusive without clearly delineating the more reasonable worldview.
Good points, jdlongmire, good points.
But then, you see, if you made it Atheism vs. Reformed Calvinism, I would ask,
What flavour atheism ?
After all, you klnow already that for me atheism is worthless unless it includes humanism, tolerance and a fair amount of simple commonsense, and none of these are automatically predicated by atheism per se.
You see, not even atheism can be described as having one common denominator of a presuppositional foundation; there really are different reasons for atheism, and quite different flavours of atheism --- and all that even though ostentiously atheism has nothing to say about value choices.

So back to you, jdlongmire:
just how would you phrase the question ? The debate topic ?

[jdlongmire]

Good points, jdlongmire, good points.
But then, you see, if you made it Atheism vs. Reformed Calvinism, I would ask,
What flavour atheism ?
After all, you klnow already that for me atheism is worthless unless it includes humanism, tolerance and a fair amount of simple commonsense, and none of these are automatically predicated by atheism per se.
You see, not even atheism can be described as having one common denominator of a presuppositional foundation; there really are different reasons for atheism, and quite different flavours of atheism --- and all that even though ostentiously atheism has nothing to say about value choices.

So back to you, jdlongmire:
just how would you phrase the question ? The debate topic ?


I freely acknowledge that atheism has no absolute presuppositional base. My attempt was to "set the bar" from the Reformed Calvinistic presuppositional worldview and posit a debate with an Atheist concerning the merits of "X"-Atheism and how that worldview addresses the condition of Man as opposed to a commonly agreed upon worldview, Reformed Calvinism.

I will also "offer up" the sources of basis for much of my presuppostions - The Bible (NASB) and www.monergism.com

How one defines "X" will determine the "rules of engagement".

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Good points, jdlongmire, good points.
But then, you see, if you made it Atheism vs. Reformed Calvinism, I would ask,
What flavour atheism ?
After all, you klnow already that for me atheism is worthless unless it includes humanism, tolerance and a fair amount of simple commonsense, and none of these are automatically predicated by atheism per se.
You see, not even atheism can be described as having one common denominator of a presuppositional foundation; there really are different reasons for atheism, and quite different flavours of atheism --- and all that even though ostentiously atheism has nothing to say about value choices.

So back to you, jdlongmire:
just how would you phrase the question ? The debate topic ?

Gurdur/jdlongmire,

Would you both like to set up a formal debate, I assume? If that's the case, since this thread is intended for setting up a debate between poodle & Timothy, could you please start a separate thread?

Thanks,

NS, FD mod

[jdlongmire]

Sorry, my (weak) attempt to begin constricting the boundaries of the debate.

Since I know Tim, I know that his presuppostions, as my own, originate from the commonly accepted worldview known as Reformed Calvinism. I am also aware that atheism has "denominational" divisions. The proposition "Are atheists foolish?" would likely be more apt to fit within the boundaries of the debate rules (though I have my doubts), by refining the presupposition from "Are Atheist foolish?" to "Reformed Calvinism vs. "X"-Atheism" on some topic in order to gain perspective on the "foolishness" of the worldviews in question.

My error is that I also have inadvertantly positioned myself as the debator, when I do not believe that I have the time to adequately prepare reasoned responses/propositions to the debate. Thus, I defer, and remove myself from that position, although I will continue to make recommendations. (Maybe some other time. :) )

[jdlongmire]

I have PM'd Tim to insure he has visibility to the debate request.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

I want to let Rev. Muse, as the challenged, set the details of the terms of the debate. I insist only that the topic relate to the original challenge (to debate the assertion that "atheists are foolish") and the terms are fair.

Both Rev. Muse and myself have external commitments that will prevent us from spending much time on this topic for the next week or two, so we can be relaxed about the details.

I definitely agree that we should definitely stipulate the definition of foolishness before we debate; I'm happy to accept the dictionary definition; alternatively, Rev. Muse can offer his own definition for consideration.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

This is ideal for me as well, as I am moving at the beginning of October.



No big deal, but I prefer my handle to read "Poodle Lovin' Pessimist" when properly punctuated.

Just a short reply to let all involved know I've not been avoiding comment at this point, but as I PM'd Poodle Lovin Pessimist, the weekends are the heavy part of my week (preparation, preaching, etc.), and I will get back to more full participation early this next week.

As far a Poodle Lovin' Pessimist's user name, nothing was intended, I did not have the accurate spelling in front of me. I will use honor and use his properly punctuated name.

All comments thus far have been helpful. We'll work soon to frame the details of the debate, but like Poodle Lovin' Pessimist's comments, I think we're pretty much agreed on the basic issue (I even praised him in my PM for pulling this issue from the rest... as a critical issue and one worthy of formal debate).

[Biff the unclean]

About civility...Tim's religious beliefs include humanity being totally depraved and atheism/atheists being stupid. If he is forced to be civil he will not be able to fully express his religious arguements. Would it not be unfair to enforce civility in this debate?

[jdlongmire]

About civility...Tim's religious beliefs include humanity being totally depraved and atheism/atheists being stupid. If he is forced to be civil he will not be able to fully express his religious arguements. Would it not be unfair to enforce civility in this debate?

How does the position that humanity as a whole, including himself, is depraved, uncivil?

civil - not rude; marked by satisfactory (or especially minimal) adherence to social usages and sufficient but not noteworthy consideration for others;

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

About civility...Tim's religious beliefs include humanity being totally depraved and atheism/atheists being stupid. If he is forced to be civil he will not be able to fully express his religious arguements. Would it not be unfair to enforce civility in this debate?

I think "foolish" is a civil enough word. In any case, I challenged Rev. Muse on the use of the word, so I think I'm stuck with it.

"Depraved" in the context of fundamentalist theism is not, IMHO, so bad. It just means "not naturally moral".

Besides, I hold that I can be insulted only with my consent and participation. If I refuse to be insulted, a person is merely attempting to describe me: If he is correct, it is foolish to be insulted; if he is incorrect, then the description does not apply to me and I am not in fact insulted.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I think "foolish" is a civil enough word. In any case, I challenged Rev. Muse on the use of the word, so I think I'm stuck with it.

"Depraved" in the context of fundamentalist theism is not, IMHO, so bad. It just means "not naturally moral".

Besides, I hold that I can be insulted only with my consent and participation. If I refuse to be insulted, a person is merely attempting to describe me: If he is correct, it is foolish to be insulted; if he is incorrect, then the description does not apply to me and I am not in fact insulted.

Nevertheless, I'd rather not allow the topic of the debate to be based on a personal attack. If someone came in to propose the debate topic "Are Christians morons?" then I'd decline it (even if the Christian accepted the topic). Perhaps I'd be willing to compromise with what JLazarus suggested with the proposed topic "Is Atheism a Foolish Position?" which isn't necessarily directed as a personal attack.

Personally, I'd really prefer that the debate topic be framed on the reasons Timothy thinks atheism is foolish rather than the term "foolish" per se (e.g. Calivinist moral philosophy, presuppositional apologetics, Pascal's Wager, or whatever he might use).

NS, FD Mod

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

Nevertheless, I'd rather not allow the topic of the debate to be based on a personal attack.

I understand your concern.

Personally, I'd really prefer that the debate topic be framed on the reasons Timothy thinks atheism is foolish rather than the term "foolish" per se...

I have no objections to this.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

I will soon provide a definition of foolish. (I'm just in the middle of working with over 50 churches right now on an important project).

I do not intend in any way to make this an issue of "personal attacks"; for as I stated in the thread, it is the foolishness of the "position" that I challenge.

As a Christian, I believe the Holy Spirit is the lord of the conscience, and therefore no man's conscience is to be bound by another (i.e. I respect the right of every man to believe what he chooses, without insult or defamation from others); but at the same time the beliefs themselves can be challenged in way consistent with respect and integrity that brings the belief system, world view, or practical matters associated with it into question, without demeaning the individual who holds them. In other words, we can have a good honest fruitful debate and do so civilly and remain a respecter of the other person before, during and after the debate. Thus far, I've seen nothing that would lead me to think Poodle Lovin' Pessimist and I cannot do this.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

Thus far, I've seen nothing that would lead me to think Poodle Lovin' Pessimist and I cannot do this.

I concur.

I think the next step is for Rev. Muse to propose a definition of "foolish" under which we can debate the atheist position. Naturally, I would resist a definition that assumes the consequent.

No rush, moving day is close upon me.

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

As a Christian, I believe the Holy Spirit is the lord of the conscience, and therefore no man's conscience is to be bound by another (i.e. I respect the right of every man to believe what he chooses, without insult or defamation from others); but at the same time the beliefs themselves can be challenged in way consistent with respect and integrity that brings the belief system, world view, or practical matters associated with it into question, without demeaning the individual who holds them. In other words, we can have a good honest fruitful debate and do so civilly and remain a respecter of the other person before, during and after the debate. Thus far, I've seen nothing that would lead me to think Poodle Lovin' Pessimist and I cannot do this.

I'd be okay with this. As I noted previously, a resolution "Is Atheism a Foolish Position?" would be acceptable.

NS, FD Moderator

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

FYI: I am moving today. I won't have DSL at my new place until October 6th. My internet access until then will be spotty at best and nonexistent at worst. I'll get back online as quickly as I can.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

I apologize for taking so long on this, but here's my proposal for the debate. This is my first proposal and formal debate. I stand to be corrected or imporved upon in this proposal. I suggest what I think would best provide debate on the topic of interest and would do so in a way fair to each participant and their views. Again, I'm open to further suggestions, changes, etc. open on changes to it, but felt this best represents the issue and makes

1. The topic of the debate.

The Foolishness of the Atheist Position.

Definitions:
Foolishness – folly; unwise, lacking in judgment; unreasonableness, pointless; without good sense or reason; reckless, contemptible (not in Webster’s sense of looking down on someone as being low, mean or unworthy, but in line with “the punishable act of showing disrespect for the authority or dignity of a court, as by disobedience, unruliness, etc.), dangerous, perilous.

Atheist Position – the act or expression of holding, trusting, exercising and espousing the belief that God does not exist.

Note: There is a fine but DISTINCT line between attacking one’s position (and calling one’s beliefs foolish) and attacking the person holding the position. While the topic of this debate goes beyond the question of whether atheism is foolishness to the greater question of whether holding the position of atheism is foolish; the debate will stay clear of personal attacks and disrespect.

It is affirmed that all people possess personal dignity and the freedom to believe what they will. At the same time no man’s conscience is to be bound by another, no man is to demean another personally for the beliefs they hold. This does not mean however, that all beliefs and values are of equal worth or desirability, or that people holding certain beliefs are not culpable for their beliefs, or that the person holding positions or beliefs that can be proven to be less profitable and desirable are not acting unwisely (i.e. while it is not acceptable in this debate to call one’s opponent a “moron�, etc.; the nature of the debate does justify apologetically pointing out the natural end or consequences of one’s beliefs or belief system, and challenging one’s opponent to consider these issues). As the Christian principle states: we can at the same time love the individual and disagree or even attack their beliefs, leaving the person uninjured; though they may themselves have to stop living (to themselves, …and to their firmly and fondly held beliefs) in the process of being renewed and transformed, (…just as Christians claim they have to stop living to themselves and to their own beliefs that Christ might live in them).

Rev. Timothy G. Muse’s purpose in debating this topic is to propose arguments to challenge Atheists to reconsider their position in view of considering, accepting and embracing the Christ offered in the Christian Scripture (Nicene Creed).

2. The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse – will argue the foolishness of the Atheist position
Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist – will argue the opposite (the wisdom of the Atheist position)

3. The scope of the debate

Unlimited. However, the scope will be defined by each participant in their statement and defense of their own positions. As noted above, personal attacks are outside the scope of this debate.

4. The length of the debate

11 Rounds (See below)

5. Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Part I The Case for Foolishness
Opening Case (Rev. Timothy G. Muse)
Rebuttal (Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist)
Response (Rev. Timothy G. Muse)
Rebuttal (Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist)
Closing Statement (Rev. Timothy G. Muse)
Part II The Case for Wisdom
Opening Case (Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist)
Rebuttal (Rev. Timothy G. Muse)
Response (Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist)
Rebuttal (Rev. Timothy G. Muse)
Closing Statement (Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist)
Part III Concluding Statements (Both published at same time)
Both: Foolishness – Rev. Timothy G. Muse
Wisdom – Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist

6. The maximum length of each statement

5000 Words

7. The maximum duration between statements

No more than 1 Week

8. The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

No more than 50% of the statement

9. The starting date of the debate.

October 18

10. Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

None.




Hope Poodle Lovin' Pessimists move went well. If the date needs to be delayed on starting this, I have no problem with that.

[PoodleLovinPessimist]

The move went well, thank you. Internet is up and running a day (actually two days, but I was busy yesterday) early.

I accept the terms of the debate. I am ready to participate.

A personal question: Is is acceptable to address you as "Rev. Muse" or would you prefer your full handle? As for myself, "PLP" or "Poodle" are acceptable nicknames.

[Rev. Timothy G. Muse]

The move went well, thank you. Internet is up and running a day (actually two days, but I was busy yesterday) early.

I accept the terms of the debate. I am ready to participate.

A personal question: Is is acceptable to address you as "Rev. Muse" or would you prefer your full handle? As for myself, "PLP" or "Poodle" are acceptable nicknames.

Either is fine. (We used to have a saying: Call me what you want, just don't call me late for dinner!)

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

I just wanted to clear up the summary a bit. Otherwise, we're ready to go. :) On Oct. 18, we will set up debate thread. This thread will now be closed.

----------------------------------

1. The topic of the debate.

The Foolishness of the Atheist Position.

2. The participants of the debate, and what positions they will argue.

Rev. Timothy G. Muse will argue the foolishness of the atheist position and
Poodle Lovin’ Pessimist will argue the opposite (the wisdom of the atheist position).

3. The scope of the debate

Unlimited. However, the scope will be defined by each participant in their statement and defense of their own positions. Personal attacks are outside the scope of this debate. Overall, the debate will examine the question of whether the position of atheism is "foolish" or "wise." The terms "foolishness" and "atheist position" are defined as follows for purposes of this debate:

Foolishness – folly; unwise, lacking in judgment; unreasonableness, pointless; without good sense or reason; reckless, contemptible (not in Webster’s sense of looking down on someone as being low, mean or unworthy, but in line with “the punishable act of showing disrespect for the authority or dignity of a court, as by disobedience, unruliness, etc.), dangerous, perilous.

Atheist Position – the act or expression of holding, trusting, exercising and espousing the belief that God does not exist.

4. The length of the debate

Special (see #10)

5. Whether statements will be made concurrently or in turns, and if the latter, who goes first.

Special (see #10)

6. The maximum length of each statement

5000 Words.

7. The maximum duration between statements

1 week.

8. The extent to which quotes and references from outside sources will be allowed.

No more than 50% of the statement.

9. The starting date of the debate.

Opening statement due on or within 10 days after Oct. 18.

10. Any additional rules or a debate format that debate participants must observe.

The debate will be set up in the following way:

Part I: The Case for Foolishness
Round 1: Timothy opens; PLP rebuts
Round 2: Timothy defends; PLP rebuts
Round 3: Timothy concludes

Part II: The Case for Wisdom
Round 1: PLP opens; Timothy rebuts
Round 2: PLP defends; Timothy rebuts
Round 3: PLP concludes

Part III: Concluding Statements (concurrent statements)