Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[osgart]

So your claim is that reason does not work in an explanatory sense, like in court or science?


Reasons for feelings or actions is not necessarily reasoned. You see a sad movie and cry, you aren't crying because it is reasonable to do so, you feel empathy. And those feelings in the moment fade after some time.

[quote[Evidence doesn't reveal knowledge of one's values.

Reason does. Evidence is physical in nature, and available to the senses. Not everything is like that.

Sure it does. All the people who were arrested for the Jan 6 for insurrection and other crimes. What they did is evidence of their values. Why are their values so anti-democratic and criminal? Because they believed Trump's lie. These are all values that we see expressed. These people formed values for various reasons, but none were reasoned via facts and sober thought.

Theists are similar, they adopt beliefs and values from their religious circle, and tyuically it's not reasoned values. We humans evolved to conform to tribal norms, and in conformity we do so for the sake of belonging, and because we feel obligated to build trust. This is all subconscience and not completely deliberate. We see Baha'i adopt anti-gay attitudes and their only reason is because it is in the texts. They offer no facts or reasoning why that bias and prejudice is moral or reasonable.


Logic is part of the broad category of philosophy, and is a set of rules that govern thought. That logic is a credible set of rules does not meat that all philosophy is logical, true, or valid. There is a lot of nonsense philosophy out there.[/QUOTE]

Court and science are separate issues. Court involves moral agency. Science can only explain behaviours of existing phenomenon and it is spectacularly successful at that. Science cannot explain anything about why something exists, or if it has any reasons for it's existence. That falls to philosophy.

What a person cares about is based on understandings and not feelings that change so often.

No I never said all philosophy is good philosophy.

The argument between atheists and theists is a philosophical argument. Thus it relies on inferences and intuitions. Inferences and intuitions can be argued, accepted, rejected only by other inferences and intuitions. It can be argued ad infinitum and there's nothing to directly decide the matter. I'm only atheist because of my intuitions.

Reason is a way of knowing if the logic is good. But observation and sense experience can only tell you about behaviours that manifest. Observation and sense experience has limitations as well. It takes reason to establish why, or a motive.

The foundation is empirical, but the knowledge is often decided by reason. The senses don't tell the whole story.

 

[F1fan]

Sure it does. All the people who were arrested for the Jan 6 for insurrection and other crimes. What they did is evidence of their values. Why are their values so anti-democratic and criminal? Because they believed Trump's lie. These are all values that we see expressed. These people formed values for various reasons, but none were reasoned via facts and sober thought.

Theists are similar, they adopt beliefs and values from their religious circle, and tyuically it's not reasoned values. We humans evolved to conform to tribal norms, and in conformity we do so for the sake of belonging, and because we feel obligated to build trust. This is all subconscience and not completely deliberate. We see Baha'i adopt anti-gay attitudes and their only reason is because it is in the texts. They offer no facts or reasoning why that bias and prejudice is moral or reasonable.


Logic is part of the broad category of philosophy, and is a set of rules that govern thought. That logic is a credible set of rules does not meat that all philosophy is logical, true, or valid. There is a lot of nonsense philosophy out there.

Court and science are separate issues. [/quote]
They both rely on valid evidence to form conclusions. That is the similarity I am referring to.

Court involves moral agency.

Moral agency? Where did you get this idea? Humans have agency. Courts are instututions.

Science can only explain behaviours of existing phenomenon and it is spectacularly successful at that. Science cannot explain anything about why something exists, or if it has any reasons for it's existence. That falls to philosophy.

Right, science can't explain why the tooth fairy exists, or why Allah or Vishnu exists, or why any of the creator Gods of the Hawaiian Islands exist (wait, do any of these gods exist?). Not that we are aware of, so science doesn't give any attention to lore, myths, fictional characters, etc. Science casn't explain how Santa gets into houses with skinny chimneys, or not chimneys. I wanna known, don't you? Thank God we have philosophy to explain it all. Theology and philosophy can go on and on about all sorts of things and not have to rely on facts or credible explanations. There is a lot of philosophy that is closer to fiction than science. So consume at your own risk.

What a person cares about is based on understandings and not feelings that change so often.

So you see your dog hit by a car and it dies and your sadness is due to understanding, and not feelings? Are you Spock? Explain this claim of yours.

No I never said all philosophy is good philosophy.

I never said you did. If you are going to compare science to philosophy it implies philiosophy is comparable in credibility.

The argument between atheists and theists is a philosophical argument. Thus it relies on inferences and intuitions. Inferences and intuitions can be argued, accepted, rejected only by other inferences and intuitions. It can be argued ad infinitum and there's nothing to directly decide the matter. I'm only atheist because of my intuitions.

You are casting a huge net called "philosophy". This broad net does not mean science and reasoning is necessarily philosophical, as I have explained that philosophy includes very dubious thinking and conclusions. You are guilty here of blurring specifics. You are mixing everything into a big, messy stew, and avoiding specific details, arguments, and conclusions. Science and logic use very high standards of thought and method, and shows its work. That stands on its own. It might be included in your broad net of "philosophy" but you need to undnerstand the high stand of specific endeavors and not mix them all up into a confusing stew of labels. Science and logic has a higher objective standard than low standard, subjective theology and philosophy.

Reason is a way of knowing if the logic is good. But observation and sense experience can only tell you about behaviours that manifest. Observation and sense experience has limitations as well. It takes reason to establish why, or a motive.

Reasoning is synonymous with logic. Reasoning is invalid when a person uses fallacies. We see people argue for ideas and they claim they are using logic and being rational. When they are exposed as using fallacies they should adjust their thinking. They often don't. They are thinking with logical errors, and this should not be confused with skilled thinking called reasoning. Those who use reason want valid conclusions. Those committed to flawed conclusions, and use fallacies as part of their thinking, are not reasoning.

The foundation is empirical, but the knowledge is often decided by reason. The senses don't tell the whole story.

What whole story? It's a red flag that you use ambiguous phrases like "whole story" and then don't bother to explain what you mean.

If the senses can't detect the "whole story" how do you know it's a real thing? Guesses? Could what you believe as the "whole story" be imagined, or some ideas you adopted subconsciously from your social exveriences? Is it possible?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You treat your assumption and belief in a God as if it's factual..

..of course, as you do with your assumption that no gods exist.

..and then you construct sentences in your post that assert or imply this God you think exists actually exists. That is not a search for truth..

No, because I'm satisfied that I've found the truth, in as much as God as in the Bible and Qur'an is real.
Regards denomination or creed, I am open to ideas/discussion.

Look how little of my previous post you quoted..

You assume you know the reasons for that?
Your post was a reply to my post addressed to @osgart , but that's ok.

Theists often write posts that rely on their assumptions and they don't realize how inadequate they are to rational, critical thinkers..

theists, atheists .. whoever, often write incoherent posts.
Your "theist bashing" doesn't make your posts any more valid than they actually are.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Theists are similar, they adopt beliefs and values from their religious circle, and tyuically it's not reasoned values. We humans evolved to conform to tribal norms, and in conformity we do so for the sake of belonging, and because we feel obligated to build trust. This is all subconscience and not completely deliberate..

Mmm .. I would agree that most of us conform to local norms.
That would be because most of us do not have a vast knowledge of religion in general, but find the concept of God creating the universe to be coherent or compelling.

Observation and sense experience has limitations as well. It takes reason to establish why, or a motive.

The foundation is empirical, but the knowledge is often decided by reason. The senses don't tell the whole story.

Exactly .. in the scientific method, we collect/observe data .. we then form conclusions that might be correct .. or incorrect.
Every case is different, so some conclusions seem almost overwhelmingly to be correct, whereas others are less reliable due to factors of uncertainty.
They say that "it's all damn lies and statistics" .. sometimes we can be fooled by 'science'.

 

[osgart]

To establish guilt you have to have a moral framework and establish motives for or against those moral frameworks. One has to deduce those motives from actions committed.

The feeling is produced by understanding the fact that the dog died. The emotion is a product of the understanding.

The subject of God is not equivalent to Santa. The Gods you are referring to are specific to imagination. A purely naturalistic God is possible.

Living organisms that have consciousness are not detectable without first person experience. There could be a whole other dimension to reality than what is physically observable.

The idea that all that exists is physical is built on intuition and philosophy. The idea that there is more to reality than observable physics is quite possible and still yet only built on intuition and philosophy.

Philosophy is a necessary exercise before science is done, is it not?

There may be more to reality than science can handle. Human sense organs may not give us exact reality and all that it encompasses. On one level much can be determined but there may be deeper levels to reality.

Humans often don't see the whole of a situation, humans have limited perspective. Corroboration from a different perspective has to match other perspectives. And even when they do match, there may be other parts missing that need to be filled in.

 

[F1fan]

..of course, as you do with your assumption that no gods exist.

I assume no such thing. I defer to the logical default that non-factual claims (like Gods and other concepts that are not fact-based nor plausible) are apvroached as untrue UNTIL these claims can be shown to be true, or at least likely true. Theists continually fail to provide valid evidence and a coherent explanation to support their religious claims.

You admit that you assume a God exists, so I am asking you why you make this assumption.

No, because I'm satisfied that I've found the truth, in as much as God as in the Bible and Qur'an is real.
Regards denomination or creed, I am open to ideas/discussion.

And these discussions you are having with skilled thinkers reveal your thinking and belief is not rational or credible.

You assume you know the reasons for that?

I ask hard questions that often reveal the weakness in your positions, and you avoiding them implies you agree that your position is not defendable or factual or rational. It's called "dropped arguments" in debate, and it is a loss on your part.

theists, atheists .. whoever, often write incoherent posts.

I can see how a theist who assumes a God exists, and this idea answers certain questions can be confused and confounded by the points made by critical thinkers. The points made by atheists can feel harsh and incisive, and it cuts into the meaning that theists have assigned to their beliefs.

Your "theist bashing" doesn't make your posts any more valid than they actually are.

Of course if feels like bashing because you hold ideas and beliefs that are not rational conclusions, rather beliefs you have decided are true via other motives and reasons. If your beleifs were true and valid you wouldn't be complaining, you would be rebutting my points and answering my questions.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Theists continually fail to provide valid evidence and a coherent explanation to support their religious claims..

Perhaps you can think about that, rather than just repeatedly asserting it..

What you are saying, in effect, is that you can't accept any evidence that believers provide as you do not consider it "rational".
This means that you deem all believers to be irrational.
i.e. you cannot accept anything other than empirical proof

To me that is nonsense. You know that God is not a physical concept, yet expect empirical evidence.
Why would you even wish to engage in such discourse?
I'm tiring of that, so don't expect me to answer detailed posts about it in future.

You admit that you assume a God exists, so I am asking you why you make this assumption..

Simple really, because I cannot envisage a universe that contains intelligent beings to have no cosmic significance, and find Abrahamic scripture to be a coherent explanation of why I'm experiencing ..well .. anything at all really.

And these discussions you are having with skilled thinkers reveal your thinking and belief is not rational or credible.

I rate "me", who do you rate?

It's called "dropped arguments" in debate, and it is a loss on your part..

I'm quite used to being a "loser" in this life. I can live with it.

The points made by atheists can feel harsh and incisive, and it cuts into the meaning that theists have assigned to their beliefs.

..and atheists have no answers .. they just assume that the universe is "rudderless".

Of course if feels like bashing because you hold ideas and beliefs that are not rational conclusions..

No, it looks like bashing, because it is.
You dismiss belief as "can't prove it", and theists are irrational, implying that you are the smartest .. when it is purely a case of a person who prefers to adopt a materialist philosophy.
eg. Who/what is responsible for the existence of the universe?
You: don't know, don't care

 

[DNB]

You're speaking from an Abrahamic, religious point of view.
Not all religions have a creator god. Not all have judgemental or rule-giving gods. Not all have god's concerned with right and wrong, or with the affairs of man. Not all even have gods.
But man abides by moral laws - why?

You asked:↑ "Why do certain tree grow fruit, when it doesn't consume the fruit itself?" If you weren't asking about the biological function of fruit, what were you asking?

Like I said: it is the sustenance of other creatures. Who made that communication possible - telling the tree to feed other animals?

 

[F1fan]

Perhaps you can think about that, rather than just repeatedly asserting it..

Oh the irony. Coming from a guy who keeps repeating religious dogma, and offers no facts or an argument as to why the dogma is true.

What you are saying, in effect, is that you can't accept any evidence that believers provide as you do not consider it "rational".
This means that you deem all believers to be irrational.
i.e. you cannot accept anything other than empirical proof

To me that is nonsense. You know that God is not a physical concept, yet expect empirical evidence.
Why would you even wish to engage in such discourse?
I'm tiring of that, so don't expect me to answer detailed posts about it in future.

I accept any evidence that would be accepted in court. Your feelings, your tradtion, your beliefs, your faith, your interpretations of books, would not be accetped as valid evidence in court. You are asking your debate opponents to lower their standard to yours, and that is unaccetpable. We have high standards for evidence because that is the standard that is reliable and works to establish truth. Notice you spend time compalining and none offering evidence that is credible. It's as if you know you can't meet the high standard being asked of you. You might think you are defending the faith, but you are only avoiding the debate.

Simple really, because I cannot envisage a universe that contains intelligent beings to have no cosmic significance, and find Abrahamic scripture to be a coherent explanation of why I'm experiencing ..well .. anything at all really.

Who cares? You can't imagine a universe without a set of religious ideas as a cause. There is no evidence for anything on your list. You don't seem willing to consider that the reason you think this list must the true is because you were influenced by other religious people in your social experience. Hindus have a different creation account and various gods in charge of different things. Your list is clearly Abrahamic in origin, and these ideas were passed down through the Caananites, the Hebrews, the Jews, the Christians, and then Muslims. No wonder you assume all this is true, and the God of Abraham is the cause. You accepted the whole lineage of religious evolution. And you still think it's true.

I rate "me", who do you rate?

So you agree with me that your debate is not rational or credible? You did not refute this observation with any defense.

I'm quite used to being a "loser" in this life. I can live with it.

Does this mean you equate your religious beliefs with losing?

..and atheists have no answers .. they just assume that the universe is "rudderless".

Atheists accept valid answers from experts, and this is all we can offer in debate. Religious beliefs are not answers that are true, valid, or credible. They feel good to certain minds, but if believers truly wanted truth they would work to understand why they ended up believing in ideas that lack evdidence and are often contrary to knowledge about how things are.

No, it looks like bashing, because it is.
You dismiss belief as "can't prove it", and theists are irrational, implying that you are the smartest .. when it is purely a case of a person who prefers to adopt a materialist philosophy.

It is like you blaming a driver for running you over when you were seen running out in front of the car. Don't blame others for presenting factual and reasoned rebuttals to your beliefs and claims. You are engaging via your own decision. At this point you don;t seem to have anything to offer as an argument for why your religious beliefs and assumptions are reasonable and true.

eg. Who/what is responsible for the existence of the universe?

Why assume there is a who? Why assume it was deliberate? These are questions that can't be answered, so the rational mind just sets them aside. They don't decide to pick an implausible option and run with it. The only reason moden peolpe think as you do is due to the tradition of religious belief that has been passed down for many generations. That is not a sound basis to inherit flawed ideas.

You: don't know, don't care

I care about having a mind free of irrational belief. I have the discipline to resist the temptation to believe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I accept any evidence that would be accepted in court..

What .. with a Muslim jury?

Your feelings, your tradtion, your beliefs, your faith, your interpretations of books, would not be accetped as valid evidence in court..

..see above..

..We have high standards for evidence because that is the standard that is reliable and works to establish truth..

What truth .. the truth about the existence of God?
I'm sorry, but I find your attitude pathetic
If you want to adopt a materialistic ideology, then that is your prerogative. You should not, however, expect everyone to agree with you.

Many people do not need empirical evidence to believe in God.
That is NOT because they are being irrational .. not at all.
It has nothing to do with "standard of evidence" .. it is based on reason. Many people can not envisage a rudderless universe.
You cannot convince me otherwise. You have no proof that it is.
It might make sense to you, but to me, it's gobbldigook.

Who cares? You can't imagine a universe without a set of religious ideas as a cause..

That is not what I said.
First comes the "why?" .. and then comes the seeking and finding.

There is no evidence for anything on your list..

Why do I need to categorically prove anything to you?
I believe that God has guided me, and you reject.
That's between you and the "universe" .. not my concern,
other than being a friendly human.

You don't seem willing to consider that the reason you think this list must the true is because you were influenced by other religious people in your social experience..

It all started by meditation by myself.
..and then seeking and finding.

Hindus have a different creation account..

Deviation. You wish to discuss anything except God.

No wonder you assume all this is true, and the God of Abraham is the cause. You accepted the whole lineage of religious evolution. And you still think it's true.

Absolutely .. it just serves to make my faith stronger.

So you agree with me that your debate is not rational or credible?

No.

Atheists accept valid answers from experts, and this is all we can offer in debate..

What is an "expert"? An atheist who you happen to support?

Religious beliefs are not answers that are true, valid, or credible..

Yes, you are right .. all people who follow religions are inferior to you [ ahem ]

They feel good to certain minds..

..but not the highly intelligent like you [ahem]..

Why assume there is a who? Why assume it was deliberate? These are questions that can't be answered..

They cannot be answered by the scientific method alone, no.
It involves human nature, as well.
I hear atheists saying that love isn't real .. it's just an emotion that involves chemicals and neurons.
I find this "defence" against non-materialist philosophy/religion as lame .. human beings don't marry and hold relationships while reminding themselves that their lives aren't "real" .. do you??

I care about having a mind free of irrational belief. I have the discipline to resist the temptation to believe.

satan is actually a believer .. he only pretends that God does not exist to spread his evil of destruction.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Theists continually fail to provide valid evidence and a coherent explanation to support their religious claims.

Just wondering if you have read my previous posts here about prophecy being a symbolic language. Am I coherent? It is difficult to try to talk about words that can't be heard.

Prophecy is not about magic, or about the future. That is a misunderstanding.
It is a symbolic language. Thats why people cant hear what the sentences are saying.


Like this verse is talking about 3 different symbols:

And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Hosea.


And each symbol is assigned to certain different positions. And those positions can be explained as being different levels.

Like the river is at a higher level than the sea, or a hill is higher than a valley.



Consider the valley of corn:

The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm


The river of oil:

Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel.


And the mountain of wine:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.


The words are straight:

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream
Corn - Olive - Grape
Bread - Oil - Wine

Corn is in the valley position, Oil is in the river position, and Wine is in the mountain position.


It is talking about 3 different symbols/positions

And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. Psalm.


Are you able to comprehend what I'm saying?

Are we able to talk about bread and wine?
The low and the high.

 

[F1fan]

What .. with a Muslim jury?


..see above..

So you request a baised jury because you are guilty and can't defend yourself on th merit of evidence? The proper way is an impartial jury that will look at the evidence unbiased.

What truth .. the truth about the existence of God?
I'm sorry, but I find your attitude pathetic
If you want to adopt a materialistic ideology, then that is your prerogative. You should not, however, expect everyone to agree with you.

Your feelings about me is irrelevant. This is an open debate forum and you make claims that you can't demonstrate are true and valid. That's on you.

Many people do not need empirical evidence to believe in God.
That is NOT because they are being irrational .. not at all.
It has nothing to do with "standard of evidence" .. it is based on reason. Many people can not envisage a rudderless universe.
You cannot convince me otherwise. You have no proof that it is.
It might make sense to you, but to me, it's gobbldigook.

There is no empirical evidence for any gods. It is irrational to decide an idea is true when it lacks evidence for that conclusion. The more extraordinary the claim, the more evidence it needs. If you claimed to eat a ham sandwich for lunch that is not controversial or extraordinary. But when you claim a God exists, and that your religious dogma is true, we need more than your say so. Theists do not conclude a God exists via facts and understanding of the evidence, they do so because they adoted the idea from their social experience.

That is not what I said.
First comes the "why?" .. and then comes the seeking and finding.

The "why" questions tend to be questions that can't be answered, and shouldn't be asked. As I already explained we know there is no way to answer WHY the universe exists. It likely exists for NO reason, and to ask why only confounds our greed for purpose and meaning. Theists not only ask WHY, but they believe they have answers, yet they can't show that the answers are valid. Traditions of belief, like the Abrahamic religions, are not intellectual pursuits revealing knowledge, they are about a tradition of meaning, and unfortunately this comes with poor thinking habits of believers and they adopt these ideas are true at face value. Does it really help humans form a false answer just because it is emotionally satisfying? That is intellectual fraud, and to my mind creates a weak meaning.

Why do I need to categorically prove anything to you?

Because this is a debate forum and if you make claims that ideas are true you have an intellkuectual obligation to demonstrate them true. Otherwise by default you lose the deabte, and your claims regarded as false.

The whole point of making claims in debate is because you have evidence and can present a coherent explanation and argument. It is against the forum rules to proseylize.

I believe that God has guided me, and you reject.

I reject any claim that is made without evidence and an argument. You have a bad habit of doing this. You keep repeating claims as if that is persuasive and proper.

That's between you and the "universe" .. not my concern,
other than being a friendly human.

There are rules of this forum and in debate, and you are ignoring them as if you are priviliged. If you keep making claims without evidence then I won;t respond, and you will in essence admit you can't show it's true.

It all started by meditation by myself.
..and then seeking and finding.

You didn't come u with your specific beliefs through meditation, you heard these ideas from othrs, and you adopted them. The ongoing question is why you, or any theist, adopts certain ideas that are not consistent with facts, and lack evidence. This is what critical minds ponder. Theists ignore this question and focus of how it feels to belong to a religious tribe that has a story.

Deviation. You wish to discuss anything except God.

No, just clarification that the Abrahamic creation myths are not the only myths on the planet. There are about 200 creator gods in human history, and your God in just one of them. Critical thinkers understand this as an important elelment to examining religious belief.

Absolutely .. it just serves to make my faith stronger.

Why, faith is unreliable and even dangerous as we see with Muslim extremists. Why aren't you interested in searching what is true about the univeerse?

No.

Yet your claims go stated over and over, but unsupported with evidence and a coherent explanation. Look at your answer here, you don't even bother to give examples of how your posts are rational and true, you just disagreed with me. That isn't debate.

What is an "expert"? An atheist who you happen to support?

This is an example of how theists have contempt for expertise in science. Do you really have to expose your bias so clearly?

The question is why why don't you accept experts and their work? If you were accused of a crime and you had to hire an expert to reveal the prosecution's case is wrong I'll bet you wouldn't have a problem with experts. But where their work contradicts your religious beliefs? You have bias.

This attitude of yours should inform you of a lack of critical thinking skill, and bias about searching for truth.

They cannot be answered by the scientific method alone, no.

And science is the best and most objective method we humans have to determine what to true about the universe. The diversity of religions and religious beliefs illustrates none of them are objectively valid. Religions are not fact-based and ideally should not be treated as true, yet many world citizens are not skilled thinkers and adopt religious frameworks as if true.

It involves human nature, as well.
I hear atheists saying that love isn't real .. it's just an emotion that involves chemicals and neurons.

Atheists reject the claims that love comes from a supernatural source. Love is described by science as a mental process that involves a set of human behaviors and feelings, like empathy, attachment, exverience, meaning, etc. Theists who claim love is supernatural fail time and time again to back up this belief. So we throw it out.

I find this "defence" against non-materialist philosophy/religion as lame .. human beings don't marry and hold relationships while reminding themselves that their lives aren't "real" .. do you??

On the contrary, materialists are the one's who acknowledge life is real, that feelings are real, that everything we sense and measure is real. It is theists who believe in the invisible and non-factual beliefs, and it's theists who can't show their beliefs are real, so we throw them out as irrational.

satan is actually a believer .. he only pretends that God does not exist to spread his evil of destruction.

OK, prove Satan exists. And then prove god exists. Then provide verifiable facts that you can demonstrate what Satan and God are, and how they behave. Note: I'm not asking you for your beliefs, your beliefs are irrelevant. I am asking for facts. Facts are true statements that can be verified by impartial minds.

If you can't meet your obligation in debate, then this comment of yours is yet another irrelevant claim you can't show is true, and we throw it out.

 

[F1fan]

Just wondering if you have read my previous posts here about prophecy being a symbolic language. Am I coherent? It is difficult to try to talk about words that can't be heard.

Prophecy is not about magic, or about the future. That is a misunderstanding.

Then you need to address your comments to believers who DO believe prophesy is about the future. Many of them do, and they are not shy in claiming their beliefs.

It is a symbolic language. Thats why people cant hear what the sentences are saying.

The arts tend to be symbolic and not literal. Atheists assert this about holy books quite often. It is believers who interpret holy books literally.

Like this verse is talking about 3 different symbols:

And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Hosea.


And each symbol is assigned to certain different positions. And those positions can be explained as being different levels.

Like the river is at a higher level than the sea, or a hill is higher than a valley.



Consider the valley of corn:

The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm


The river of oil:

Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel.


And the mountain of wine:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.


The words are straight:

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream
Corn - Olive - Grape
Bread - Oil - Wine

Corn is in the valley position, Oil is in the river position, and Wine is in the mountain position.


It is talking about 3 different symbols/positions

And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. Psalm.


Are you able to comprehend what I'm saying?

I agree the texts are symbolic and not literal. WHAT the symbolisms means is a debate that can be had. That would take a great deal of study of the societies that produced the prose, and examine the literature in the original languages.

Are we able to talk about bread and wine?
The low and the high.

I'm a big fan of Malbec and strudel.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..The proper way is an impartial jury that will look at the evidence unbiased..

I couldn't agree more .. we need a balance.

This is an open debate forum and you make claims that you can't demonstrate are true and valid..

true? valid?
What are we discussing, exactly?
OP:
Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

Ah, yes.

There is no empirical evidence for any gods..

Good grief .. why do you feel the need for continually repeating the obvious??

It is irrational to decide an idea is true when it lacks evidence for that conclusion..

rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

It is not irrational to believe in God. It is not irrational to believe in a non-physical concept, just because it cannot be detected by physical means.

The "why" questions tend to be questions that can't be answered, and shouldn't be asked. As I already explained we know there is no way to answer WHY the universe exists. It likely exists for NO reason..

..so you say, but many people see that as highly unlikely .. why would that be?
How can a universe which contains intelligent beings have no particular reason for its existence?
There is an explanation for everything, in my experience.

Theists not only ask WHY, but they believe they have answers..

..depends what you mean by "theist" .. some people would say that Buddhists are "theists" .. why don't you say "believers in God" .. that would be more to the point.

Traditions of belief, like the Abrahamic religions, are not intellectual pursuits revealing knowledge..

It all depends on a person's intentions.
If a person sincerely seeks knowledge about the Divine, that is not equivalent to a person who makes no effort to learn, and just participates in the social norms of their society.

Because this is a debate forum and if you make claims that ideas are true you have an intellkuectual obligation to demonstrate them true..

I disagree. There is no obligation in a religious debate forum for another to empirically prove anything.
We are here to learn .. there is not much to learn in atheism .. except that "gods don't exist" .. wow

Otherwise by default you lose the deabte, and your claims regarded as false.

I don't care about winning or losing a debate.
I'm more interested in learning something, and teaching others what they do not know.

The whole point of making claims in debate is because you have evidence and can present a coherent explanation and argument..

Fair enough, so why do some people keep asking for empirical proof, when they know that God is not a physical concept?
Any other "evidence" is dismissed as inadmissable, or irrational by.the likes of you .. so why bother discussing at all when, by your "rules" .. you can't lose?

You didn't come u with your specific beliefs through meditation, you heard these ideas from othrs, and you adopted them.

That's right, I didn't.
..but if I had not already decided that God existed, I wouldn't have been seeking for answers.
I don't adopt things from others that I find are destructive or of no benefit..

There are about 200 creator gods in human history, and your God in just one of them. Critical thinkers understand this as an important elelment to examining religious belief..

No they don't. It is a ploy to deviate away from the subject.

Why, faith is unreliable and even dangerous as we see with Muslim extremists..

Most things taken to extreme are destructive.

The question is why why don't you accept experts and their work?

I can examine each "expert's" opinion on its own merit. I do not take their word for it just because they are "an expert".
Intention is extremely important. It is not always easy to evaluate.
..but my faith helps me to see falsehood, fairly often.

..where their work contradicts your religious beliefs? You have bias.

Everybody has bias for a number of reasons.
If I was not objective in my evaulation of people's opinions, the only person to lose would be myself.

And science is the best and most objective method we humans have to determine what to true about the universe..

Merely stating the obvious..

The diversity of religions and religious beliefs illustrates none of them are objectively valid..

It does nothing of the sort.
Each case needs to be evaluated independently, and we can then "put the pieces together", to form an informed opinion on their validity.

Atheists reject the claims that love comes from a supernatural source. Love is described by science as a mental process that involves a set of human behaviors and feelings, like empathy, attachment, exverience, meaning, etc.

..so what?
Atheists are usually materialists who say the mind is an emergent property of brains.
Hence love, is purely a material thing and is of no consequence .. chemicals, neurons.

On the contrary, materialists are the one's who acknowledge life is real, that feelings are real, that everything we sense and measure is real..

Really?
How so, when everything is explained by bits of meat in people's heads?

OK, prove Satan exists. And then prove god exists..

Oh, you win .. wow, you are much smarter than me.

Note: I'm not asking you for your beliefs, your beliefs are irrelevant.

No, my beliefs are not irrelevant .. and neither are yours.
We all have reasons for our beliefs .. through experience and having trust in scientists or other knowledgable people.

 

[F1fan]

rational: based on or in accordance with reason or logic.

It is not irrational to believe in God. It is not irrational to believe in a non-physical concept, just because it cannot be detected by physical means.

This is a claim. Where is your evidence and the coherent argument? Claims are only logical after you successfully defend it with evidence and a valid argument. Let’s see it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

This is a claim. Where is your evidence and the coherent argument? Claims are only logical after you successfully defend it with evidence and a valid argument. Let’s see it.

You wouldn't read it if I did..
It would be numerous pages long.

Think man ! What can you expect in a couple of posts?
Something that you can make fun of bla bla.
Why would I even bother?

See this is it .. you see our debate as a sport .. and think "winning" is somehow meaningful.
It isn't. I'm a random person on the internet.

I said "It is not irrational to believe in a non-physical concept, just because it cannot be detected by physical means."

..so rather than say "prove it", why don't you show why it is not rational to believe in non-physical concepts .. such as God?

..and no, a one-liner, such as "God cannot be physically detected" will not do.
Rationality does not just deal with scientific observation of physical matter, it deals with a number of more diverse concepts also .. such as number .. mind .. time ...

..philosophical issues.

 

[Valjean]

It works spectacularly well in the practical sense. In a explanatory sense, no.

Emotions change, cares are based on reasons.

Evidence doesn't reveal knowledge of one's values. Reason does. Evidence is physical in nature, and available to the senses. Not everything is like that.

Logic is philosophy.

Logic is mathematics -- algebra.
Boolean algebra - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

="DNB, post: 7958977, member: 72856"
"Like I said: it is the sustenance of other creatures. Who made that communication possible - telling the tree to feed other animals"

Seriously, DNB, I can't make heads or tails of this.

"It is he sustenance of other animals"

What is, fruit? But this doesn't answer my question about why you think the tree produces fruit. Is it just being neighborly?

"Who made that communication possible"

What communication? When did we start talking about communication?

"Telling the tree to produce fruit"

Is this the "communication" you're talking about?

Nobody communicated to the tree. Fruit developed by ordinary, intentionless, natural selection, as a way for a sessile organism to spread and reproduce. Fruit's a way of enticing mobile organisms to spread the tree's seeds far and wide, often with a dollop of fertilizer, as well. This is the function of fruit.

 

[Valjean]

What truth .. the truth about the existence of God?
I'm sorry, but I find your attitude pathetic
If you want to adopt a materialistic ideology, then that is your prerogative. You should not, however, expect everyone to agree with you.

The existence of God is not a truth, it's an unsupported assertion, hence, invalid.

Many people do not need empirical evidence to believe in God.
That is NOT because they are being irrational .. not at all.
It has nothing to do with "standard of evidence" .. it is based on reason. Many people can not envisage a rudderless universe.

Personal incredulity is not reason, nor is it based on evidence. You're conflating familiarity and 'gut feeling' with reason and evidence. https://en.wikipedia.o/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
"Many people...." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

"That is not because they are being irrational."
It is exactly because they are being irrational. They hold a "fixed belief unaffected by conflicting evidence." This defines a delusion.

You cannot convince me otherwise. You have no proof that it is.
It might make sense to you, but to me, it's gobbldigook.

Exactly! -- a fixed, unalterable belief, unaffected by contrary evidence; a delusion.

The burden of proof is entirely on you. You're the one making the theological assertions. "No God" is the logical, epistemic default, it's assumed, pending contrary evidence.
"No God" is reasonable, "God" is not. It's a product of faith.

Why do I need to categorically prove anything to you?

Because you made the assertion -- in a debate forum -- and are trying to convince F1fan &al that your belief is true and valid.

Deviation. You wish to discuss anything except God.

We've been discussing God for 300+ posts. We're just waiting for someone to establish His existence. It's hard to have a substantive discussion of something imaginary.

 

[Valjean]

Just wondering if you have read my previous posts here about prophecy being a symbolic language. Am I coherent? It is difficult to try to talk about words that can't be heard.

Prophecy is not about magic, or about the future. That is a misunderstanding.
It is a symbolic language. Thats why people cant hear what the sentences are saying.

Like this verse is talking about 3 different symbols:
And the earth shall hear the corn, and the wine, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel. Hosea.


And each symbol is assigned to certain different positions. And those positions can be explained as being different levels.

Like the river is at a higher level than the sea, or a hill is higher than a valley.
Consider the valley of corn:

The pastures are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn; they shout for joy, they also sing. Psalm

The river of oil:

Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord God. Ezekiel.

And the mountain of wine:

Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that the plowman shall overtake the reaper, and the treader of grapes him that soweth seed; and the mountains shall drop sweet wine, and all the hills shall melt.


The words are straight:

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Valley - Hill - Mountain
Sea - River - Stream
Corn - Olive - Grape
Bread - Oil - Wine

Corn is in the valley position, Oil is in the river position, and Wine is in the mountain position.


It is talking about 3 different symbols/positions

And wine that maketh glad the heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which strengtheneth man's heart. Psalm.

Are you able to comprehend what I'm saying?

Sorry.... No. It's gobbledygook.