Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[muhammad_isa]

Many other theists don't take this as a given; they assert that their faith is rational and based on evidence..

You are confusing the issue.
There is a difference in saying that a belief is rational and based on evidence, and "we can detect God with some material process".

Also, I think you give yourself too much credit. The bar isn't set at "can God be proved?" The bar is at "is there any scrap of evidence that God could be real?:

..and if you say that there is not, you would infer that all believers are fooled and deluded.
Give yourself a "pat on the back" for being so much more intelligent, and adopting a materialist faith.

If God were to exist, God would be a physical being..

..and why is that?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Rarely have I ever agreed with isa, but I gotta say I do on the notion of what would constitute a god, and that it would definitely be a physical being if a god were to exist. There's nothing to suggest or necessitate that, and with the various theories we have of different dimensional planes of existence, the existence of "spiritual" or energy-based beings is not outside the realm of possibility.

 

[Hawkins]

You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."

The ultimate difference is,

Theists believe that truth is conveyed by testimonies, while atheists believe that truth is conveyed by evidence. What the atheists believe is actually a delusion (crafted by the crafty snake).

 

[SkepticThinker]

The ultimate difference is,

Theists believe that truth is conveyed by testimonies, while atheists believe that truth is conveyed by evidence. What the atheists believe is actually a delusion (crafted by the crafty snake).

Relying on evidence is not delusional. Quite the opposite.
Relying solely on testimony (over evidence) is folly, given what we know about human nature and psychology.

 

[Quintessence]

Oh dear, if relying on testimony is folly humans are utterly doomed considering all humans routinely rely on testimony in their day-to-day lives.

 

[F1fan]

Perhaps its like trying to discuss alchemy regarding the reality of the philosophers stone and the turning of lead into gold.

Could the believers of alchemy and the unbelievers of alchemy reach a scientific conclusion?
Are the words true? Can lead be turned into gold or not? Is it just a myth?

Im wondering if I've seen some possible scientific evidence of turning lead into gold. I've noticed there is a law in the bible about metals which has a range from gold through to lead.

Lead and gold are both elements, and they are made in the cores of stars. One element can be changed into another by a process called nuclear transmutation. Can lead lead be turned into gold? That is a question for scientists. If it is more expensive than gold itself it isn't worth it.

This is the law I'm talking about. Says the lord commanded it to moses.

And Eleazar the priest said unto the men of war which went to the battle, This is the ordinance of the law which the Lord commanded Moses;

Only the gold, and the silver, the brass, the iron, the tin, and the lead,
Numbers 31:21-22


So therefore "turning lead into gold" could mean the turning of lowest into highest according to the law.

Was it said by an actual God, or just men who claimed to be speaking for a God for which there is no evdience?

And the philosophers stone could be the heart of a philosopher listening to the law.


Consider a philosopher having a heart of stone:
"Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the Lord of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath from the Lord of hosts". Zechariah 7:12

I suggest philosophers think for themselves, and ignore laws that are claimed to be from gods.

The different metal symbols are as the earth and the heavens.

The bible says the earth is iron and above the earth is the heaven of brass.

"And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron". Deuteronomy 28:23



The law has six metals as being the earth and the heavens.

Lead - Tin - Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold

(The bible says God made the earth and the heavens in 6 days and rested on the seventh, perhaps the seventh day should be considered carefully).

It is also interesting to note that there are two metals lower than the Earth.


Can you comprehend what I'm trying to talk about?

Iron - Brass - Silver - Gold
Earth - Bread - Oil - Wine

No. You are speaking as if your religious beliefs and interpretation is rational and coherent. You offer no factual explanation.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Oh dear, if relying on testimony is folly humans are utterly doomed considering all humans routinely rely on testimony in their day-to-day lives.

Testimony + evidence

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are confusing the issue.
There is a difference in saying that a belief is rational and based on evidence, and "we can detect God with some material process".

So you have some "immaterial" process that can provide evidence to rationally conclude that God exists? Please share.

..and if you say that there is not, you would infer that all believers are fooled and deluded.
Give yourself a "pat on the back" for being so much more intelligent, and adopting a materialist faith.

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I'm not looking to build myself up or look down on anyone.

You brought up the question of rationality. I responded.

..and why is that?

Because that's how the "physical" is implicitly defined: that which exists.

When we look at how people use the terms "physical" and "supernatural," we can see:

• "Physical" is used to describe things that demonstrably exist.
• "Supernatural" is used to describe things we're personally invested in, but can't actually demonstrate the existence of.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

The ultimate difference is,

Theists believe that truth is conveyed by testimonies, while atheists believe that truth is conveyed by evidence. What the atheists believe is actually a delusion (crafted by the crafty snake).

You have, of course, evidence of your last sentence?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So you have some "immaterial" process that can provide evidence to rationally conclude that God exists? Please share..

I think you know that I refer to testimony, as others have already pointed out too.

Because that's how the "physical" is implicitly defined: that which exists.

When we look at how people use the terms "physical" and "supernatural," we can see:

• "Physical" is used to describe things that demonstrably exist.
• "Supernatural" is used to describe things we're personally invested in, but can't actually demonstrate the existence of.

False assumption.
That something is either "real" or unreal [supernatural].

Non-physical concepts are numerous..

Philosophers generally do agree on the existence of abstract objects. The mind can conceive of objects that clearly have no physical counterpart. Such objects include concepts such as numbers, mathematical sets and functions, and philosophical relations and properties. If such objects are indeed entities, they are entities that exist only in the mind itself, not within space and time.
Non-physical entity - Wikipedia

All a materialist does, is insist on reducing such concepts to "physical existence" .. and obviously fail, imo.

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have, of course, evidence of your last sentence?

Of course he does.
..but "the crafty snake" is oh so clever..

whisper, whisper .. ever heard of talking to yourself?
I'm sure you have..
Explain it how you will .. we all know that treachery is evil, but that whispering voice .. sometimes "wins" ..

However, a created being cannot be triumphant over the Creator of all. satan and all who follow evil with purpose are condemned. They effectively condemn themselves by their intention and actions.

The remembrance of God cause satan's whisperings to reduce in volume. Being in good company has the same effect.
satan loves to pick on "the lone sheep" ,. it is intentional.

Explain away by brains and evolution, but the result does not change. Evil is still very real .. and of course, it is not a physical concept !

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think you know that I refer to testimony, as others have already pointed out too.

But testimony of what?

If you're talking about an account of someone witnessing empirical evidence, then you're still using empirical evidence (as well as the trustworthiness of the testimony) as the foundation for your claim.

If you're talking about testimony that doesn't refer to some sort of empirical evidence, then how is the testimony evidence at all?

False assumption.
That something is either "real" or unreal [supernatural].

Non-physical concepts are numerous..

Philosophers generally do agree on the existence of abstract objects. The mind can conceive of objects that clearly have no physical counterpart. Such objects include concepts such as numbers, mathematical sets and functions, and philosophical relations and properties. If such objects are indeed entities, they are entities that exist only in the mind itself, not within space and time.
Non-physical entity - Wikipedia

All a materialist does, is insist on reducing such concepts to "physical existence" .. and obviously fail, imo.

Are claiming that God only exists as a concept?

 

[Valjean]

What mechanism?
Reality consists of our senses, and interpreting them .. we don't actually see atoms with spinning particles, although they are very real. It is an observation of how this physical universe behaves..
Gravity, and nuclear forces and what have you, are all being maintained by "something" .. you prefer "don't know", or it is self-sustaining but don't know how.

Where did the molecules come from that God used to create the world and its creatures? How did He suddenly poof us into being from clay? What created the organic molecules? What moved them to combine together to form tissues and organs? What mechanisms did God use? That's what I'm asking. How, not who.
These are questions addressed by science. "Goddidit" answers none of them.

I don't prefer "don't know," but it's all we have until physicists uncover more about nuclear forces, gravity, and what not. Of course, every discovery raises more questions, so there's always a "don't know" boundary that creationists can exploit to illustrate the defects of science.

We have intelligence .. we are able to come to our own conclusions about scriptures.
Our underlying intentions and personal experiences affects the outcome too .. human beings are complex creatures .. our minds are far from simple.

Sikh children usually grow up to be Sikhs; to see it's tenets as reasonable, if not plain commonsense. They see the Guru Granth as reasonable, cohesive, and clearly a true, divinely inspired scripture. The same may be said of Hindus and the Gita, Muslims and the Qur'an, and Taoists and the Tao.

This does not sound like intelligent persons making informed decisions. These religions and scriptures can't all be right. This sounds like people primed from childhood with specific religious outlooks and raised in societies advocating these views, while not exposing their children to alternative views.

 

[wellwisher]

Dreams and visions are an important parts of many religions. Revelations of the New Testament, for example, is based on visions. Visions are not things that science can investigate, with its current philosophy, since these data happen within the mind and are not outside the mind in a place one can see and test in the third person. Visions begin as a first person event; part of you.

The visions of Revelations were recorded, but nobody can run tests to verify these details, since science do not have the tools for another team to recreate this from scratch. Science is not equipped to deal with this by its own chosen limitations; has to be outside so we can all see it. If it is inside, it can be real, but science cannot deal with it. One has to take the word of the person who had the visions; faith.

We have zero first hand hard data of life on other planets. This requirement is based on the philosophy of science. Yet so many in science assume this contradiction to its own philosophy. is valid.

This theory without proof is based on thought processing in the heads do people, which is the same place where dreams and vision appear. Many will write about their visions of life on other planets and this will have an impact on the audience. They can feel the vision,, even though there is no hard proof. This is how religion works with the best visions able to withstand the test of time.

 

[Valjean]

No, they are not scientific works..
Is that the only academic subject of worth?
Why is it that Universities offer so many different courses?
Maths .. languages .. humanities .. all sorts.

Scriptures claim to be, and are believed to be, ontological truth; the Words of God. Reality is the domain of science. Religion has a bad habit of trespassing into the magisterium of science, and making unevidenced, often demonstrably false, proclamations.
Other disciplines: maths, humanities, &c, don't tend to do this.

The Bible and Qur'an come under the heading of Divinity.
They can be studied to a high level.

As literature, with historical, anthropological and philosophical implications, perhaps, but not as treatises on the nature of reality. That's the domain of physics.

To you it might all be worthless, but we all have something to offer, whether any particuar individual can see that or not.

I'm not saying they're worthless. They're important and influential works, well worth university level study, but not as textbooks of biology, geology or physics.

Correct .. they are not science books .. neither are they fictional fantasy books .. The Bible is a collection of texts of varying age and author, as I assume you know. The Qur'an is ~1500 years old, and is claimed to be the literal "word of God" dictated to Muhammad.

Naturally many people will reject them for a variety of reasons. It is to be expected. Many people, particularly those with status and wealth, have always rejected God's Messengers.

However, in the case of Christianity and Islam, we see that many people are believers.
I do not see that atheists or believers are rational or irrational..
..they simply believe or disbelieve.
It's not rocket-science.

How do you see us in disagreement, here?

 

[Valjean]

The ultimate difference is,

Theists believe that truth is conveyed by testimonies, while atheists believe that truth is conveyed by evidence. What the atheists believe is actually a delusion (crafted by the crafty snake).

Reasonable people, intellectuals, and thinkers, believe truth is discerned through evidence. What atheists believe can be anything. Atheism isn't a belief system or philosophy, nor is it a delusion. A delusion os a false belief. Atheism has no beliefs.

You imply evidence is deceitful, whilst testimony is reliable. Yet there are thousands of testimonies, which usually disagree with each other, and generate hundreds of different religions. That doesn't bode well for their reliability. Moreover, they make clearly erroneous historical and scientific claims.

Science's analysis and testing of evidence, on the other hand, yields practical, productive, results, and unity of opinion. That would seem to be a strength.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course he does.
..but "the crafty snake" is oh so clever..

whisper, whisper .. ever heard of talking to yourself?
I'm sure you have..
Explain it how you will .. we all know that treachery is evil, but that whispering voice .. sometimes "wins" ..

However, a created being cannot be triumphant over the Creator of all. satan and all who follow evil with purpose are condemned. They effectively condemn themselves by their intention and actions.

The remembrance of God cause satan's whisperings to reduce in volume. Being in good company has the same effect.
satan loves to pick on "the lone sheep" ,. it is intentional.

Explain away by brains and evolution, but the result does not change. Evil is still very real .. and of course, it is not a physical concept !

I don't have any whispering voices in my head and if I did, I'd go visit a psychiatrist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you're talking about testimony that doesn't refer to some sort of empirical evidence, then how is the testimony evidence at all?

Of course it is. If somebody claims to be "sent by God", then one can believe it, or they can disbelieve it.
If we have evidence that it is not an isolated incident, we can decide whether they are all deluded or fraudulent, or that there is more to it than "meets the eye".

That doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick or Harry that claims to be sent by God is credible .. that would be a poor defence. It is not that difficult to see who is obviously deluded, and can be dismissed.
Clearly, many people see that Jesus and Muhammad are NOT in that "bracket".
Does that prove the testimony is true?
Not by itself, no.
..but there is a lot of material to study. Just dismissing it all with a wave of the hand, is your prerogative, but don't expect others to follow in suit.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Where did the molecules come from that God used to create the world and its creatures?

No, it's just not like that.
Molecules don't have to come from anywhere .. physical reality is based on forces .. what is a force? Can you "see it"?
No, but you can detect it.

How did He suddenly poof us into being from clay?

I never claimed that He did.
I don't know how God created us .. I assume it is a mix of evolution, along with an "unseen" component.

We are made "from clay" or physical materials, as opposed to other forms of energy.
..and yes, physical material is equivalent to energy, per Einstein.

What created the organic molecules? What moved them to combine together to form tissues and organs? What mechanisms did God use? That's what I'm asking. How, not who..

Almighty God is the Evolver from nought.
Nought, as in the space-time continuum came into being as per big-bang, and life evolved etc.

This does not sound like intelligent persons making informed decisions. These religions and scriptures can't all be right. This sounds like people primed from childhood with specific religious outlooks and raised in societies advocating these views, while not exposing their children to alternative views.

I rarely see perfection in anything.
..particularly when it comes to the claims of mankind, and what is "truth" and so on.
There IS a cosmic truth, and some creeds are very likely to be closer to it than others.
The fact that people's creeds are all different does not indicate that they are all wrong, it is that some part of them must be wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't have any whispering voices in my head and if I did, I'd go visit a psychiatrist.

Ha !
Most people "talk to themselves", but do not need to attend a psychiatrist.