Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[SkepticThinker]

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

Talking to oneself and hearing a whispering voice in one's head are quite different things.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Talking to oneself and hearing a whispering voice in one's head are quite different things.

Are you sure?
How can you know, when there is two sides to the conversation?

I am not necessarily talking about schizo symptoms .. that is an extreme, often uncontrollable mental health problem.

 

[Valjean]

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.

But what does all this have to do with whether unevidenced testimony is evidence? You didn't address Penguin's question.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But what does all this have to do with whether unevidenced testimony is evidence?

What is "unevidenced testimony"?
You mean, somebody who claims to be sent by God, but doesn't "prove it" .. what exactly?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Are you sure?

Yep.

Using one's own voice, and hearing another voice are different things.

How can you know, when there is two sides to the conversation?

Pardon?

If you hear voices in your head, or someone whispering in your head and telling you things, you should seek psychiatric attention.

I am not necessarily talking about schizo symptoms .. that is an extreme, often uncontrollable mental health problem.

What are you talking about then?

 

[Quintessence]

If you hear voices in your head, or someone whispering in your head and telling you things, you should seek psychiatric attention

Would you mind if I create a spin-off thread about this? I won't name you specifically if you prefer, but I feel this is a topic that deserves its own thread.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Would you mind if I create a spin-off thread about this? I won't name you specifically if you prefer, but I feel this is a topic that deserves its own thread.

Sounds good to me.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What are you talking about then?

I'm referring to the internal workings of our mind.
"hearing voices", as in the psychiatric case, is very pronounced, and uncontrollable.

We all have "bad thoughts" from time to time, but we can usually control them if we wish, and tell ourselves "no, I shouldn't do that".

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm referring to the internal workings of our mind.
"hearing voices", as in the psychiatric case, is very pronounced, and uncontrollable.

We all have "bad thoughts" from time to time, but we can usually control them if we wish, and tell ourselves "no, I shouldn't do that".

I don't see my internal thoughts as "whispering voices" but if you do, alrighty then. I think of "whispering voices" as something entirely different.

 

[F1fan]

What is "unevidenced testimony"?
You mean, somebody who claims to be sent by God, but doesn't "prove it" .. what exactly?

Yes, that exactly. Any nutcase can claim anything they damn well pelase, that God talks to them and tells them the "truth", and are we supposed to accept it? If someone is going to claim they have some truth, or that God talks to them, rational minds require that fantastic claim to be evidenced. That means their fantastic claims needs fantastic evidence. As we know believers fail miserably to offer evidence for their fantastic religious claims. They have no resvect for facts, for reason, for the rules of logic, and have contempt for the rules of debate. Believers are flagrant in their disregard for proper debate and the rules that govern this civil discourse.

What we are seeing is believers state claim after claim without any sort of justification or evidence, and often cite misleading words or phrases, and this forces critical thinkers to spend a lot of time correcting these errors, and asking for evidence. This is ofetn followed by denials, and no evidence, and even more claims. The Gish tactics in creatiosm debates is an example of this, and the believers just flood their time with lists of wrong assertions and the well-educated have to spend what little time they have correcting the misleading and deceptive claims. It often takes more time to correct one false claim, so believers have learned to do similar things: just flood their posts with many false and misleading claims and statements.

The debate is impossible because theists come to debate without adequate knowledge, and often loaded with religious dogma they believe is knowledge. So these debates aren't about determining truth from a set of facts and data, but in correcting the errors of people who are not interested in learning.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yes, that exactly. Any nutcase can claim anything they damn well pelase, that God talks to them and tells them the "truth", and are we supposed to accept it?

Come off it..
Most believers do not accept the claims of any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Why would they? We are not all stupid, you know.

The Gish tactics in creatiosm debates is an example of this..

Many "fundamentalists" do not have a good formal education.
If you enjoy these types of debate, then fine.
I personally lose interest quite quickly.
I thank God that I had a good, broad education, and enjoy conversing with most people .. but Bible literalism, without academic knowledge often crosses a line .. a line that denies well established scientific fact. It's not for me !

..So these debates aren't about determining truth from a set of facts and data, but in correcting the errors of people who are not interested in learning.

You are guilty of presuming that all believers are alike .. we are not. We are all unique human beings, with a story to tell.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Of course it is. If somebody claims to be "sent by God", then one can believe it, or they can disbelieve it.

Someone saying that they've been sent by God a claim, not evidence.

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".

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here.

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.

So you think there are criteria we can use to tell a false prophet from someone who was actually sent by God? Please share.

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 it is pretty telling that the vast majority of people who believe this about Jesus or Muhammad had to be indoctrinated from birth to believe their claims.

..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.

Sounds like you're suggesting the Courtier's Reply.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here..

If we only had evidence that just "one prophet" taught about God, there would be less reason to think it was true.
This is why many atheists wish people to think that texts were merely copied fraudulently over the years, and are not separate revelations.

So you think there are criteria we can use to tell a false prophet from someone who was actually sent by God?

I do think that.
The more religious knowledge one has about Abrahamic religion, the more one can spot major inconsistencies.

eg. a prophet who claims all the older laws no longer hold..
Hmm .. why would that be? Is God teaching us nonsense or what?

But it is pretty telling that the vast majority of people who believe this about Jesus or Muhammad had to be indoctrinated from birth to believe their claims..

Yeah .. knowledge of all religion is "indoctrination", while worldly knowledge is education.

We all have preconceived ideas. Better to have an open mind.
In that way we can progress, and become wiser.

 

[Valjean]

Come off it..
Most believers do not accept the claims of any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Why would they? We are not all stupid, you know.

But most believers have accepted, uncritically, the first claims they were presented with, their own family's religion. They rarely study competing claims, or subject their own religion's claims to critical analysis.

 

[muhammad_isa]

But most believers have accepted, uncritically, the first claims they were presented with, their own family's religion..

I would hope so, particularly if they have been taught in "Sunday school" or equivalent.

Children have to trust their parents and teachers in their earlier years .. it is then encumbent on us when we mature to think for ourselves .. find out more.

They rarely study competing claims, or subject their own religion's claims to critical analysis.

That is our failing .. we are often busy with worldly affairs.
Those who realise the value of faith are the lucky ones.
They gain knowledge that is of everlasting value.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Children have to trust their parents and teachers in their earlier years .. it is then encumbent on us when we mature to think for ourselves .. find out more.

... and finally loose our family's religion.

 

[muhammad_isa]

... and finally loose our family's religion.

Maybe, maybe not.

That would depend on what we discover .. and what we are looking for.

 

[Valjean]

I would hope so, particularly if they have been taught in "Sunday school" or equivalent.

Children have to trust their parents and teachers in their earlier years .. it is then encumbent on us when we mature to think for ourselves .. find out more.


That is our failing .. we are often busy with worldly affairs.
Those who realise the value of faith are the lucky ones.
They gain knowledge that is of everlasting value.

How can unfounded belief confer knowledge? What value does unevidenced belief have?

 

[WonderingWorrier]

Can lead be turned into gold? That is a question for scientists.

But if there was an alchemy debate between believers and unbelievers about turning lead into gold I would have a different point of view to consider.

I would say the words are not being heard correctly so are being misunderstood and it has nothing to do with gold.

Gold is a symbol used in a symbolic language and it has a certain position.
As gold is with the apple. It is a logical golden apple.

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple

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

Are you having trouble comprehending me saying the words are not being heard correctly or that they are symbols?

"Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word". John 8:43

 

[WonderingWorrier]

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

There was a post where I quoted you. Can you respond with more than just saying its gobbledygook?

I thought it was quite simple.

Here:

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.

Tell me. What exactly are you having trouble understanding about that?