Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[infrabenji]

Exactly. I dont' mean some vague Nostradamus style 'quatrain'
but the broad Messianic/Israel ones.

Broad messianic/ Israel ones? How can you make arguments based on prophecy.? That’s not a real thing is it? What about prophecy needing to be falsifiable also not overly vague et al. I can go back into any religious text and find so called prophecies. I use to make up my own biblical prophecies about the end times and such for fun because of how vague and rambling they all are but you wouldn’t actually make an argument for the existence of Jesus, for instance, with Isaiah would you? I must be confusing your position. If so I’m sorry. Thanks in advance for your insight.

 

[infrabenji]

I've been involved in discussions like this for half my life, and I've never found that either.



Just out of curiosity, what was the question?

I get what you mean, I've found that debates tend to turn out to be the same points rehashed over time. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a thread started by someone who thinks they have come up with a new proof of God that is flawless and utterly convincing, and it turns out to be a version of the First Cause argument or something.

I continue with these debates not because I think I'll change a believer's mind (although I actually did that once, when she started actually thinking about the points I raised), but because I know there are people reading the threads that are being swayed by the appeals to emotion and other logically flawed arguments that the believers spout, and I want to provide a contrasting viewpoint so these people on the fence can see an argument against the believer's side.

Lol The question was “What would it take to convince you god is real?” I’m really glad you’re out there giving a counter point. That hadn’t occurred to me to be more mindful of the people on the fence. Maybe I can make a difference in someone’s life as well.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yeah it’s honestly weirded me out how far removed from reality. My conversations here have been relatively fruitless. I haven’t come across anything substantive from a theist

581 posts and still nothing substantive? What do you consider substantive?
Sorry, I lost track of this thread because I am busy defending God from atheists on another thread, not that God needs an attorney, but I when I see falsities posted about God I am obliged to correct them.

 

[Tiberius]

Lol The question was “What would it take to convince you god is real?”

My standard answer to that is this. If the Bible said something like:

"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."

I would indeed take it as evidence for God, because it describes knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.

I’m really glad you’re out there giving a counter point. That hadn’t occurred to me to be more mindful of the people on the fence. Maybe I can make a difference in someone’s life as well.

We can all make a difference in lots of ways. Even if I just get someone to examine their reason for holding a belief, I would consider that a victory, even if they maintain that belief. Because I think the greatest danger is for people to just blindly accept ideas without thinking, taking them on board without considering what they actually mean. The ability to critically examine a belief is something that I think everyone should have.

 

[PruePhillip]

Broad messianic/ Israel ones? How can you make arguments based on prophecy.? That’s not a real thing is it? What about prophecy needing to be falsifiable also not overly vague et al. I can go back into any religious text and find so called prophecies. I use to make up my own biblical prophecies about the end times and such for fun because of how vague and rambling they all are but you wouldn’t actually make an argument for the existence of Jesus, for instance, with Isaiah would you? I must be confusing your position. If so I’m sorry. Thanks in advance for your insight.

Take Ezekiel for instance. His work in 36-39. Speaking of an Israel that will redeemed
in ANOTHER TIME NOT CONNECTED TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTITIVITY, of which
Ezekiel was also a captive.
The Jews would return to Israel 'a second time', they would one day be 'the possession
of every nation.... ravaged and crushed on every side.' The Jews would come out of the
nations that were their 'graves.'
Israel would be 'desolate ruins and seserted towns.' that were 'ridiculed by the rest of the nations.'
But Israel 'will produce branches and fruit.... for they will soon come home' and 'settle you
like in the past... and more prosper more than before.
Did you know Israel is Europe's number one fruit exporter?
When the Jews lived in Israel before they defiled it and were 'dispersed among the nations.'
'I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land...' and ' you will
live in the land I gave your ancestors;' and ' The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying
desolate ..' And Israel will become one nation under Joseph (of Egypt) and Juda - Joseph spent
his days in Egypt yet he was still connected to the tribes of Israel. As Jews today. And the Jews
shall be 'one nation' divided no more.
And then we read what happens. Gog and Magog invade Israel, with Lybia, Iran and Ethiopia in
tow. But Israel has an ally not known to Ezekiel, in the 'coastlands' or 'islands' who 'send fire
upon Gog...from the north' though Gog is the 'uttermost north' of the world. Meaning I suppose
across the north pole. And this war is like none other - of fire, earthquake, the walls falling down.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yeah it’s honestly weirded me out how far removed from reality. My conversations here have been relatively fruitless. I haven’t come across anything substantive from a theist

Well said Tiberius. You’re a smart apple. I thought hearing arguments from different religions might give me some insight or revelation, maybe is the right word. I thought in such a popular forum called general religious debates someone would be able to demonstrate the veracity of their beliefs, but no. It’s just conjecture, baseless assertions, and fortune cookie philosophy so far. I had one guy ask me a question that he said 99% of atheists couldn’t answer. Well big surprise the answer was obvious right away. I’ve always been fascinated with religion and spend a good amount of time in study but I’ve never engaged in rhetoric with religious people speaking to the veracity of their claims. It’s always just been a hobby starting with different mythologies ( Sophocles is a personal favorite) as a child and growing up to study theology, philosophy, and religion. Apologetics and counter apologetics I’ve studied very little. So, I really have valued your insight and have enjoyed watching you engage with theists throughout the thread. I’m still happy to have a discussion or debate any religious person but I doubt that will happen again. I haven’t found many of the religious people I’ve spoken to be the most intellectually honest. I believe I have yet to see someone, no matter how strenuous their arguments, adjust their position or even take the time to consider. I know there must be cases where someone recognizes the fault in their position and makes the appropriate adjustment as I’m sure we both do when faced with the same dilemma. I just haven’t seen it and frankly I’m surprised. Sorry for the long winded response. I just wanted to tell you a little about myself and express my gratitude for your contributions to this thread or whatever it’s called.

Well, here is an example of how a part of it works. Say someone says X is Z and not Y and someone else says X is Y and not Z.
This is a general structure of an argument some non-religious people use against contradictory religious claims of the truth of what God is.

But you see that is no unique to religion. That same problem applies to what the world is, what truth is, justification and so on. E.g. for as justified true belief (JTB) as knowledge there is at least 2 positions: JTB is possible or not possible.
But that is not unique to JTB. In general non-religious people are as diverse as religious people and the only property the non-religious have in common, is that they are non-religious. They are different about what science, evidence, proof, truth, philosophy, morality, ethics and so on are. In fact they can't even agree on what atheism is:
Go to the bottom of the page and start at definitions.
Our Vision | American Atheists

So philosophy, truth and all that it is. You use those words as if you know in the positive, so make your case.
And no, I am not religious, yet I am apparently different from you as to what truth is.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

My standard answer to that is this. If the Bible said something like:

"And the Earth moved in a great circle around the sun, held in place by the sun's mass. And the circle was not perfect, but was longer in one direction than the perpendicular, and the passage of the Earth swept out equal areas in equal times. And the sun shone with the light of its tiniest parts coming together."

I would indeed take it as evidence for God, because it describes knowledge that the people of the time could not possibly have.



We can all make a difference in lots of ways. Even if I just get someone to examine their reason for holding a belief, I would consider that a victory, even if they maintain that belief. Because I think the greatest danger is for people to just blindly accept ideas without thinking, taking them on board without considering what they actually mean. The ability to critically examine a belief is something that I think everyone should have.

So since you answer in regards to real in a positive sense, what is real?

 

[infrabenji]

Take Ezekiel for instance. His work in 36-39. Speaking of an Israel that will redeemed
in ANOTHER TIME NOT CONNECTED TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTITIVITY, of which
Ezekiel was also a captive.
The Jews would return to Israel 'a second time', they would one day be 'the possession
of every nation.... ravaged and crushed on every side.' The Jews would come out of the
nations that were their 'graves.'
Israel would be 'desolate ruins and seserted towns.' that were 'ridiculed by the rest of the nations.'
But Israel 'will produce branches and fruit.... for they will soon come home' and 'settle you
like in the past... and more prosper more than before.
Did you know Israel is Europe's number one fruit exporter?
When the Jews lived in Israel before they defiled it and were 'dispersed among the nations.'
'I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land...' and ' you will
live in the land I gave your ancestors;' and ' The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying
desolate ..' And Israel will become one nation under Joseph (of Egypt) and Juda - Joseph spent
his days in Egypt yet he was still connected to the tribes of Israel. As Jews today. And the Jews
shall be 'one nation' divided no more.
And then we read what happens. Gog and Magog invade Israel, with Lybia, Iran and Ethiopia in
tow. But Israel has an ally not known to Ezekiel, in the 'coastlands' or 'islands' who 'send fire
upon Gog...from the north' though Gog is the 'uttermost north' of the world. Meaning I suppose
across the north pole. And this war is like none other - of fire, earthquake, the walls falling down.

That’s really fascinating. I’m getting the mrs. ready for work. I’ll sit down and give this its due diligence soon tho. Thanks for the response.

 

[infrabenji]

581 posts and still nothing substantive? What do you consider substantive?
Sorry, I lost track of this thread because I am busy defending God from atheists on another thread, not that God needs an attorney, but I when I see falsities posted about God I am obliged to correct them.

That’s funny. Well, good luck defending God from us heathens lol. Yeah, I haven’t come across a single argument for the the belief in or existence of any god I’ve found remotely compelling. Though I am going to sit down today and review some new material PruPhilip posted about prophecy. I’m just using the standard definition of the word substantive. Having a firm basis in reality therefore meaningful, or important, worth considering. Something like that. Thanks for the question. Good luck out there.

 

[infrabenji]

So since you answer in regards to real in a positive sense, what is real?

What are magnets? How do they work?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That’s funny. Well, good luck defending God from us heathens lol. Yeah, I haven’t come across a single argument for the the belief in or existence of any god I’ve found remotely compelling. Though I am going to sit down today and review some new material PruPhilip posted about prophecy. I’m just using the standard definition of the word substantive. Having a firm basis in reality therefore meaningful, or important, worth considering. Something like that. Thanks for the question. Good luck out there.

I have yet to come across any single argument for the the belief in the existence of any positive privileged metaphysical ontology, that I’ve found remotely compelling. That includes idealism, but is not limited to that.

BTW What is reality? I have never seen it. It seems to be a belief some people hold.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What are magnets? How do they work?

What does that have to do with real?

 

[infrabenji]

Well, here is an example of how a part of it works. Say someone says X is Z and not Y and someone else says X is Y and not Z.
This is a general structure of an argument some non-religious people use against contradictory religious claims of the truth of what God is.

But you see that is no unique to religion. That same problem applies to what the world is, what truth is, justification and so on. E.g. for as justified true belief (JTB) as knowledge there is at least 2 positions: JTB is possible or not possible.
But that is not unique to JTB. In general non-religious people are as diverse as religious people and the only property the non-religious have in common, is that they are non-religious. They are different about what science, evidence, proof, truth, philosophy, morality, ethics and so on are. In fact they can't even agree on what atheism is:
Go to the bottom of the page and start at definitions.
Our Vision | American Atheists

So philosophy, truth and all that it is. You use those words as if you know in the positive, so make your case.
And no, I am not religious, yet I am apparently different from you as to what truth is.

I get what it. People have different opinions. A conclusion is either supported by it’s premises or it isn

What does that have to do with real?

Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. I imagine we both see a lot of people on here trying to insert philosophy when it’s neither necessary or appropriate to explain a position. It’s just fortune cookie philosophy and I don’t typically engage in this type of rhetoric. So far, many people have employed this as some sort of tactic to shift the burden of proof or make a position seem untenable and convoluted. But, I think it’s a way to detract from having any clearly defensible position. It doesn’t go anywhere except the rabbit hole.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I get what it. People have different opinions. A conclusion is either supported by it’s premises or it isn't.

Yes, valid and sound(true). But there is not just one version of true.

Actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed. I imagine we both see a lot of people on here trying to insert philosophy when it’s neither necessary or appropriate to explain a position. It’s just fortune cookie philosophy and I don’t typically engage in this type of rhetoric. So far, many people have employed this as some sort of tactic to shift the burden of proof or make a position seem untenable and convoluted. But, I think it’s a way to detract from having any clearly defensible position. It doesn’t go anywhere except the rabbit hole.

The joke about that sentence is that it is not a thing or fact itself. It is imagined in the mind as a rule to differentiate between different human experiences. So the meaning of that sentence is not reality, since it is not a thing or a fact.

You see, you are as much a product of nature and nurture as all other humans and you are doing philosophy. Because your definition ends here as having reality independent of the mind. So you are apparently a product of a culture, where people believe that they have proof off what it means: having reality independent of the mind. But that is imagined or supposed.

You are not the objective authoritative source of what reality or rather the world is. Neither am I the objective authoritative source, but I don't claim that.
So you don't speak with proof of what necessary or appropriate are, because that is a subjective bias and not a part of reality. Neither do I speak with proof, because I don't believe in it.

But to round off, fortune cookie philosophy is not with any proof and in effect is nothing but what amounts to a feeling in you. You don't like that kind of being challenged about your world view, because your "we"; yet I am not a part of it, because I am one of them; is not proof. It is a rhetorical "we". You try to get me one your side of "we" and "them".

 

[infrabenji]

Yes, valid and sound(true). But there is not just one version of true.



The joke about that sentence is that it is not a thing or fact itself. It is imagined in the mind as a rule to differentiate between different human experiences. So the meaning of that sentence is not reality, since it is not a thing or a fact.

You see, you are as much a product of nature and nurture as all other humans and you are doing philosophy. Because your definition ends here as having reality independent of the mind. So you are apparently a product of a culture, where people believe that they have proof off what it means: having reality independent of the mind. But that is imagined or supposed.

You are not the objective authoritative source of what reality or rather the world is. Neither am I the objective authoritative source, but I don't claim that.
So you don't speak with proof of what necessary or appropriate are, because that is a subjective bias and not a part of reality. Neither do I speak with proof, because I don't believe in it.

But to round off, fortune cookie philosophy is not with any proof and in effect is nothing but what amounts to a feeling in you. You don't like that kind of being challenged about your world view, because your "we"; yet I am not a part of it, because I am one of them; is not proof. It is a rhetorical "we". You try to get me one your side of "we" and "them".

Reads like word soup. Sorry, can you paraphrase your ideas maybe condense them a little bit. I’ve got a meeting with my lawyer, a doctors appointment, grocery shopping etc… I really want to try to understand what you’re saying though. It sounds really fascinating.

 

[infrabenji]

Reads like word soup. Sorry, can you paraphrase your ideas maybe condense them a little bit. I’ve got a meeting with my lawyer, a doctors appointment, grocery shopping etc… I really want to try to understand what you’re saying though. It sounds really fascinating.

Also I usually go with the definition of something as defined by the consensus of scholars who define the thing, if that makes sense. You ask me what reality is I’m just going with the consensus definition. It’s usually the clearest most concise description. Let me know if you define things a different way. Philosophically for example.

 

[infrabenji]

Take Ezekiel for instance. His work in 36-39. Speaking of an Israel that will redeemed
in ANOTHER TIME NOT CONNECTED TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTITIVITY, of which
Ezekiel was also a captive.
The Jews would return to Israel 'a second time', they would one day be 'the possession
of every nation.... ravaged and crushed on every side.' The Jews would come out of the
nations that were their 'graves.'
Israel would be 'desolate ruins and seserted towns.' that were 'ridiculed by the rest of the nations.'
But Israel 'will produce branches and fruit.... for they will soon come home' and 'settle you
like in the past... and more prosper more than before.
Did you know Israel is Europe's number one fruit exporter?
When the Jews lived in Israel before they defiled it and were 'dispersed among the nations.'
'I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land...' and ' you will
live in the land I gave your ancestors;' and ' The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying
desolate ..' And Israel will become one nation under Joseph (of Egypt) and Juda - Joseph spent
his days in Egypt yet he was still connected to the tribes of Israel. As Jews today. And the Jews
shall be 'one nation' divided no more.
And then we read what happens. Gog and Magog invade Israel, with Lybia, Iran and Ethiopia in
tow. But Israel has an ally not known to Ezekiel, in the 'coastlands' or 'islands' who 'send fire
upon Gog...from the north' though Gog is the 'uttermost north' of the world. Meaning I suppose
across the north pole. And this war is like none other - of fire, earthquake, the walls falling down.

There seem to be a lot of things wrong with these chapters beyond just prophecy. I know it’s easy to look back and retroactively apply events to other events but usually this is done by historians I think? Do you know if the consensus among historians is that this is true? I’m gonna look at your breakdown of the events some more later. But I remember the chapters from school. Interesting history. Would be wild if it was true. Still don’t think I would be a Christian but I’d believe the Christian god was real lol.

 

[infrabenji]

Take Ezekiel for instance. His work in 36-39. Speaking of an Israel that will redeemed
in ANOTHER TIME NOT CONNECTED TO THE BABYLONIAN CAPTITIVITY, of which
Ezekiel was also a captive.
The Jews would return to Israel 'a second time', they would one day be 'the possession
of every nation.... ravaged and crushed on every side.' The Jews would come out of the
nations that were their 'graves.'
Israel would be 'desolate ruins and seserted towns.' that were 'ridiculed by the rest of the nations.'
But Israel 'will produce branches and fruit.... for they will soon come home' and 'settle you
like in the past... and more prosper more than before.
Did you know Israel is Europe's number one fruit exporter?
When the Jews lived in Israel before they defiled it and were 'dispersed among the nations.'
'I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land...' and ' you will
live in the land I gave your ancestors;' and ' The desolate land will be cultivated instead of lying
desolate ..' And Israel will become one nation under Joseph (of Egypt) and Juda - Joseph spent
his days in Egypt yet he was still connected to the tribes of Israel. As Jews today. And the Jews
shall be 'one nation' divided no more.
And then we read what happens. Gog and Magog invade Israel, with Lybia, Iran and Ethiopia in
tow. But Israel has an ally not known to Ezekiel, in the 'coastlands' or 'islands' who 'send fire
upon Gog...from the north' though Gog is the 'uttermost north' of the world. Meaning I suppose
across the north pole. And this war is like none other - of fire, earthquake, the walls falling down.

There is a lot of speculation going on with this. The more I read it the less I’m compelled to believe the comparison between what Ezekiel said and what’s going on in modern politics. Are the fires that destroy gog missiles of some kind? Doesn’t it say that god himself will destroy gog with fire? Let me know what you think. Thanks again for your insight.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Also I usually go with the definition of something as defined by the consensus of scholars who define the thing, if that makes sense. You ask me what reality is I’m just going with the consensus definition. It’s usually the clearest most concise description. Let me know if you define things a different way. Philosophically for example.

Okay, I will answer this one first and get the other at the end.
I will start with religion. Now if you hunt the Internet high and low, you can find at least 3 definitions of religion.
Google, one from Britannica and the notes from a lecture in the philosophy of religion.
They are not the same and for the 2 later ones, which are both from scholars they are not in total consensus.
So here is the last one to the following effect: Religion is about (human) values. That means I as an atheists is religious, because I have human values. So now for consensus and try to figure out how that relates to this about science.
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

So here is the end problem with consensus:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Go to 3. The definition of relativism
And read it and compare with the quote from Gould and this old one, which still holds:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras
It should be noted that it is about moral, cultural and social relativism.

So back to reality: That word is only around 500 years old, so before that it there was no reality for humans to speak about, yet there were apparently humans. In other words reality is a social/cultural construct about how to understand the world but there are different constructs about how to understand the world.

And since I am a classical skeptic from the tradition of philosophy and not a modern scientific skeptic, I do it differently. And in all likelihood I will never be a member of a consensus,, because I am an old school skeptic. And I don't believe in world understanding of modern western scientific skeptics and atheists.

Regards

 

[infrabenji]

Okay, I will answer this one first and get the other at the end.
I will start with religion. Now if you hunt the Internet high and low, you can find at least 3 definitions of religion.
Google, one from Britannica and the notes from a lecture in the philosophy of religion.
They are not the same and for the 2 later ones, which are both from scholars they are not in total consensus.
So here is the last one to the following effect: Religion is about (human) values. That means I as an atheists is religious, because I have human values. So now for consensus and try to figure out how that relates to this about science.
"Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]"

So here is the end problem with consensus:
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Go to 3. The definition of relativism
And read it and compare with the quote from Gould and this old one, which still holds:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras
It should be noted that it is about moral, cultural and social relativism.

So back to reality: That word is only around 500 years old, so before that it there was no reality for humans to speak about, yet there were apparently humans. In other words reality is a social/cultural construct about how to understand the world but there are different constructs about how to understand the world.

And since I am a classical skeptic from the tradition of philosophy and not a modern scientific skeptic, I do it differently. And in all likelihood I will never be a member of a consensus,, because I am an old school skeptic. And I don't believe in world understanding of modern western scientific skeptics and atheists.

Regards

That’s awesome. I’m in the doctors waiting room. I will look that stuff up and give it due consideration. Thanks again for your insight. It’s very informative.