Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[DNB]

And again, this is not evidence that any of these contradictory theologies correspond with any reality.

When conditions improved, and life became more secure and less hazardous, religiosity diminished significantly. Did you not see the graphs in Evangelicalhumanist's post #158?

There are schools and universities dedicated to theology, dissertation, homilies, polemics, thesis, countless mediums of philosophy and academia rationalizing and imparting the significance and efficacy of righteousness, love, peace and reverence for God.
...and, yet, you say that the concept of God was just a placebo in order to allay men's fears of the unknown.
...have you any idea what tuition costs at any of the leading theological seminaries?

 

[DNB]

And none seemed to be in agreement.
This is evidence of human religiosity, not support for theism. Your personal incredulity is evidence of nothing.

...you're looking at the finger, and not what the finger is pointing at.
Like I keep saying: atheists lack perception.

 

[DNB]

Yes. Theists like yourself believe you have some sort of extrasensory perception that enables you to sense things that others can't. The problem with your claim is that you can't actualy show us you have any such ability.

It's most likely that you hold non-factual and non-rational religious beliefs, you didn't arrive at these beliefs through reason, your assumption is that you must have some special ability, and since others don't share your religiouys beliefs they must be deficient in some way that you are not.

I have asked dozens of believers, mostly Christians, over the years if they have extrasensory ability that enables then to detect a God, and only a few have claimed they do. The vast majority admit they don't.

From discussions it seems the motive for believers to claim extrasensory ability is to bypass the burden of proof for their religious claims. It also is a way to imply non-believers are somehow deficient in their non-belief. Of course this is all without evidence, and is yet another fantastic claim to add to the list of fantastic claims that go without any sort of evidence.

So you might think you can bypass the burden of proof for your religious claims, but now you have to offer evidence that you have a real special ability, and not just bluffing.

Why do certain tree grow fruit, when it doesn't consume the fruit itself?

 

[DNB]

Depends what you mean by "religious" (and "spiritual," for that matter).

Off the top of my head, elephants and crows both have rituals that they do when one of the group dies, for instance.

A bias toward type 1 errors (false positives) is common among many animal species.

And complex communication among non-human animals is notoriously hard to decipher. I mean, Caribbean reef squid communicate with flashes and movements in ways that seem just as complex and nuanced as human speech, but they haven't yet classified it as "language" because it's so poorly understood by us that we can't tell if it has syntax. So what are they talking about? Does any of it qualify as "religion"? We have no idea.

Why do you have no idea? Is there any question in your mind about man's innate religious propensities? Why can't you tell whether or not animals are religious? Have you ever seen a buddhist cat or dog, and hindu fish or muslim owl, have you ever seen a camel with a burka on its head.
How in the world is it possible that you haven't a clue whether or not animals are religious?

 

[Heyo]

Isn't it more reasonable to be wholistic in what we accept as evidence. Science and scientific evidence is not all the evidence available to us.

In football (that game that is played by kicking a ball, not hand egg) you are not allowed to pick up the ball and run with it. You may have a "holistic" [sic] approach to evidence, but please don't call it science.

 

[stevecanuck]

Have you ever seen a .... muslim owl?

I have. They say, "Allah hooooooooooo akbar".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you have no idea? Is there any question in your mind about man's innate religious propensities? Why can't you tell whether or not animals are religious? Have you ever seen a buddhist cat or dog, and hindu fish or muslim owl, have you ever seen a camel with a burka on its head.
How in the world is it possible that you haven't a clue whether or not animals are religious?

Now you're just trolling.

Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not?

 

[Valjean]

So you are into scientism and see scientific evidence as the only kind of evidence.
Isn't it more reasonable to be wholistic in what we accept as evidence. Science and scientific evidence is not all the evidence available to us.

Ok, so what sort of evidence would not be "scientific?" Examples, please.
And what the heck is "scientism?"

The existence of God comes to mind when wondering how we got here and where life came from, all those things that God in the Bible tells us that He did.

But religion doesn't address how we got there. It doesn't address mechanism at all. "Goddidit" answers nothing substantive. It's not an explanation. It's an assertion of agency.
Science, on the other hand, doesn't address who -- which is all religion has any say about.

You cite the Bible. Why? There are hundreds of different creation stories, from hundreds of different cultures, just as well evidenced as the Biblical narrative.

This is something that science tries to analyse as if a God does not exist and comes up with naturalistic speculation and even seems to say that all evidence points to a naturalistic explanation, or so I am told by atheists. However the answer is really that the unicorns on the dark side of the moon gave us life.

Atheists???

All evidence does point to a naturalistic explanation. There is no evidence that God did it, what mechanism he used, or even that he exists. So, your tongue-in-cheek claim that the lunar unicorns did it has exactly the same truth-value as Goddidit.

But science doesn't even know how to determine if that is true or not and so looks at dirt becoming animated and conscious and says it has to be all naturalistic because that is what we see. How to turn magic into the natural. Science is good at it because of it's naturalistic presumption.

Magic is the domain of religion. It's anathema to science.
Science does know how to determine truth. It's the most robust and successful investigative modality ever developed. Religion, on the other hand, isn't even an investigative technique. It "knows" only what its particular folklore or holy writings teach.

Science doesn't "look at dirt" out of desperation. It observes. It observes chemical reactions, and notes that they're creating the components from which living cells are composed. It believes this could account for the origin of life because it is what's observed, and there is no other imaginable explanation.

The 4 gospels are minor inconsistencies which show witness reports from different angles, evidence for witness reporting it is said.
Other inconsistencies are in the main no problem at all and just speak to how they have been written and the genre.

The gospels have some significant inconsistencies, and the rest of the Bible contains some glaring ones, as well as outright falsehoods.

Just dismissing the supernatural is not the right approach imo.

How would it be any different from dismissing the claim that the world was sung into existence by trans-dimensional creator mice? Allow magic into the equation and anything is possible.
Q: Why should the supernatural not be dismissed, when there is no evidence that it exists? Isn't withholding belief in that for which there is no evidence a reasonable approach?

The naturalistic methodology in history (scientific presumption in history) does not test every claim, it dismisses them.

What evidenced claims does it dismiss? What testable hypotheses does it not test?

 

[Valjean]

There are schools and universities dedicated to theology, dissertation, homilies, polemics, thesis, countless mediums of philosophy and academia rationalizing and imparting the significance and efficacy of righteousness, love, peace and reverence for God.
...and, yet, you say that the concept of God was just a placebo in order to allay men's fears of the unknown.
...have you any idea what tuition costs at any of the leading theological seminaries?

So you see mankind's fear of nature and obsession with some kind of magical control as actual evidence of God? OCD = God?

 

[Valjean]

I think critical analysis has presumed mythology more than shown it to be the case with the Bible.
One way to whittle it down is to look as prophecy and fulfillment. Another would be to place the scriptures in real historical settings. Another way would be to look at how the scriptures compare with science where relevant. Another way would be to see which scriptures have lasted the test of time. Another would be internal consistency of the scriptures.

If myths were all we had there would be no facts to critically analyze. You can't analyze a will-o-the-whisp.
Prophesy? All religions claim it, and it's usually a pitiful attempt to connect an actual event to some vague, ambiguous passage that could be interpreted a thousand different ways. Moreover, many of the biblical predictions failed to materialize.
People are pattern-seeking and apophenic. They see prophecy in Nostradamus, images in the clouds, messages in records played backwards, and clear correlations between their horoscopes and their lives.
Some Reasons Why Humanists Reject The Bible - American Humanist Association -- Scroll down.
Biblical prophecies

Scriptures in historical settings? Examples, please.
Do you think the Egyptian plagues were real? or the worldwide flood? or the Exodus from Egypt -- or Moses, for that matter?
Scriptures compared to science? Scriptures are full of scientific inaccuracies, miracles, and outright falsehoods.
Test of time? Not following. Examples, please.
Internal consistency?! There is none. They're full of contradictions.

 

[Valjean]

...you're looking at the finger, and not what the finger is pointing at.
Like I keep saying: atheists lack perception.

and theists hallucinate.

 

[Valjean]

Why do certain tree grow fruit, when it doesn't consume the fruit itself?

To spread seeds, of course. What else?

 

[Valjean]

How come fish, mosquitos or bears don't have a need - creatures with a fraction of the intelligence of man?

I can't comment on the qualia of fish and bears, but how would such a need manifest? They don't have the capacity to organize religions or rituals, or communicate a common doctrine.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

If myths were all we had there would be no facts to critically analyze.

If the words of prophecy are understood as symbols and not being magic and not be about the future then you would have a way to assess mythical accuracy.


A way to determine who is a prophet and who isnt. And what is a real fairytale, and what isnt.

Like I've said their words are symbols with certain positions.

Consider if mythical creatures could be combinations of symbols that share a common position. That could be why evidence is not found of such creatures.

So if two different animal symbols share the same position, then you have something that is part one animal and part another animal. If the position has a man and an animal symbol then you have something that is part man and part animal.





When symbols and positions are understood then words of nonsense speak sense.


Like the bible talks about "The marriage of the lamb". A sentence of nonsense.


And people say its about Jesus like its about him marrying the church etc.
(Is there anyone who thinks these words are saying it is lawful for a man to marry a sheep?)

To me the marriage of the lamb speaks perfect sense. Because their symbol positions are shared.

The straightness of the words can be assessed.

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Moon - Star - Sun
Spear - Sword - Bow
Cattle - Goat - Sheep
Corn - Olive - Grape
Bread - Oil - Wine

"Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table" Psalm.

The wife symbol is in the same position as the grape vine symbol and the sheep symbol.

So the words are logically correct and I accept them as speaking mythical accuracy.

The marriage of the lamb is a symbol combination that shares a common position.
Therefore the nonsense makes perfect sense.

 

[DNB]

Now you're just trolling.

Do you want to have a reasonable discussion or not?

For what purpose at this point? Are animals religious or not, ...the question is rhetorical, because the answer is a categorical no.
Are we able to proceed past that point? If not, show me a monkey priest?

 

[DNB]

So you see mankind's fear of nature and obsession with some kind of magical control as actual evidence of God? OCD = God?

Have you lost where we are at in the conversation - you, not me, said man has fear of nature and the unknown

 

[DNB]

To spread seeds, of course. What else?

To survive, ...just like all the creatures who need the other species fruit to sustain their lives.

 

[DNB]

I can't comment on the qualia of fish and bears, but how would such a need manifest? They don't have the capacity to organize religions or rituals, or communicate a common doctrine.

Do they seem fearful to you, looking for a father figure?

 

[osgart]

Theists look toward logical deductive proof and the reliability of mental faculties.

Contemporary Argument for the Existence of God as Unconditioned Reality

Atheists only care about empiricism and evidence and will only talk in those limited terms.

So they occupy different territories with their thoughts.

 

[Valjean]

For what purpose at this point? Are animals religious or not, ...the question is rhetorical, because the answer is a categorical no.
Are we able to proceed past that point? If not, show me a monkey priest?

It depends how you define religion, doesn't it?
Must a religion have a professional clergy?

Have you lost where we are at in the conversation - you, not me, said man has fear of nature and the unknown

And seeks to assuage it through ritual and mythology.
So what's your point?

To survive, ...just like all the creatures who need the other species fruit to sustain their lives.

Huh? Not following.
Please clarify.