Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[mikkel_the_dane]

An eternal afterlife already has lasting meaning.
Anyone who is there will not have a meaningless existence which ends with death.

That is your religion. I do it differently.

 

[Brian2]

In every debate the theist claims there is evidence for God but at the end this evidence proves to be no evidence at all. For example a myth/legend can't be evidence for history.

What better evidence of God than God revealing Himself to us?

 

[Brian2]

That is your religion. I do it differently.

So you have said. Does that mean that what I said is not true?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you have said. Does that mean that what I said is not true?

I don't know. I just know that if you claim truth over me, I just do it differently.
I know nothing about truth. I leave that to God. As far as I can tell you do that differently.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You can't debate physical facts with someone who doesn't understand or accept science but the problem goes deeper.
Even if you only debate abstract things, you can't debate with someone who doesn't understand or accept logic.

Unless I turn my will and my life over to the sacred power of logic, I cannot be redeemed? Is that what you are saying?

This might be true for some, but it does not resonate with my personal experience. In my darkest hour, when no human power could help me, and when neither logic, nor reason, nor critical thinking offered any solution to my intractable problems, I turned to God. And guess what? When I needed Him, He was there.

 

[RestlessSoul]

In every debate the theist claims there is evidence for God but at the end this evidence proves to be no evidence at all. For example a myth/legend can't be evidence for history.

And yet it seems to we who believe, that God’s light burns deep in the soul of every man and woman; and that this is evident to all who choose to search honestly within themselves.

 

[PearlSeeker]

What better evidence of God than God revealing Himself to us?

And this is as much historical as Ahura Mazda, Marduk, Brahma etc.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You can't debate physical facts with someone who doesn't understand or accept science but the problem goes deeper.
Even if you only debate abstract things, you can't debate with someone who doesn't understand or accept logic.

So does logic have any limits? Not it doesn't work in some cases, but rather if it works in all cases? That is where the fun starts.

What is your take on this?
Someone: The world is logic for all cases in all senses.
Me: No.

 

[PearlSeeker]

And yet it seems to we who believe, that God’s light burns deep in the soul of every man and woman; and that this is evident to all who choose to search honestly within themselves.

Do you mean goodness?

 

[wellwisher]

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 difference between science and religion is science is about the world outside us, while religion is about the inner world; inside the mind/soul. Dreams and visions, for example, are an important part of many religions. These come from careful observation of the inner world of the brain and mind.

Psychology which is the closet science to religion, is called soft science, since the philosophy of science can not be strictly enforced when dealing with humans. The psychologist cannot reproduce the problems, concerns and dreams of the patient, as easily as two scientists looking into the same microscope to verify a type of virus.

Religion has a more difficult job, dealing with things that the philosophy of science does not take into account. This is why consciousness and the operating system of the human brain will be the final frontiers of science. Science will first need to up its game and not limit itself to just external things, since how we see the outer would is shaped by the inner world of consciousness.

Let me give an analogy of the difference. Consider the science of a tooth ache. The Philosophy of Science will observe this phenomena from the outside and will come up with some consensus theory based on the third person observations of many people. This may involve brain scans and cataloging body language, all in the third person.

Religion on the other hand, will both watch others with a toothache as well as have a toothache. This will allow it to describe the phenomena from the inside, in the first person, while not being restricted to just observing it in the third person. Which is more accurate or complete?

The Wisdom of Solomon was only not connected to him watching others; outside himself in the third person like science, but also connected to his own self observations, the latter of which is out of the reach of science due to its own philosophy.

If you consider the charisma of faith, this requires self sufficiency. It is not about forming a consensus with others with your eyes and ears. It requires experience of things within, where science does not go. In that sense, religion deals with the software of the brain, while science is strictly hardware. Religion has the option to use both; both inner and outer observations, to make its science more complete.

Motivation for accepting a given theory often comes from within based on the ego sizing the group in a given way. Consensus, for example, may not be just about the science but also about prestige and posturing for advancement. It could also be about money. This may be why science theory is hailed one day and then replaced the next, while religion get it closer to right the first time. A full internal and external assessment gets closer to the truth, sooner.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do you mean goodness?

I would describe it as the wellspring of infinite goodness and love, to which we are all connected. Though the well is often blocked (by fear, anger, stubbornness and pride), creating in us a thirst we cannot quite identify, but always know is there.

 

[Heyo]

This might be true for some, but it does not resonate with my personal experience. In my darkest hour, when no human power could help me, and when neither logic, nor reason, nor critical thinking offered any solution to my intractable problems, I turned to God. And guess what? When I needed Him, He was there.

I won't debate you over that.

 

[Brian2]

I don't know. I just know that if you claim truth over me, I just do it differently.
I know nothing about truth. I leave that to God. As far as I can tell you do that differently.

Well I believe in a particular God and that what He has told us is true, so we probably do it differently.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What better evidence of God than God revealing Himself to us?

If that were to ever happen, it would probably be great evidence.

 

[Heyo]

So does logic have any limits? Not it doesn't work in some cases, but rather if it works in all cases? That is where the fun starts.

What is your take on this?
Someone: The world is logic for all cases in all senses.
Me: No.

When you deny reason, why should I reason with you?

The limits of logic are a fun fringe element to philosophise about but in every day life it is as useful as General Relativity is over Newtonian mechanics.

 

[Brian2]

And this is as much historical as Ahura Mazda, Marduk, Brahma etc.

Well the decision as to which God is the real one is a personal thing but the Biblical God has withstood the test of time and the Biblical history is more real even when skeptics and scholars have attacked it's authenticity for hundreds of year.

 

[Audie]

The biggest problem that I have debating "Atheists" (commonly anti-theists) is that they only operate from a world view indicative of Christianity. Like this:

I don't care how you live you're life. I'm never going to tell an atheist that they're "wasting their life". As well, I will laugh at the notion that I fuss about myths. So that argument, from either side, is absolutely non-applicable in any theological debate about my beliefs.

Groovy. So why be here ifn you is so above it all.

 

[RestlessSoul]

If that were to ever happen, it would probably be great evidence.

And yet it happens every day. You have only to open your eyes.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

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."

Well, if that's the case; Wasn't Einstein an atheist who wasted the only life he would ever have, fussing about a thing that we still don't understand, assuming we ever will fully understand the universe.

Or did he chase what was most important in his life, and provide people like myself a bit of joy thinking about his hard work and accomplishments? A joy that and many more before me have experienced, and many more after me will experience, in perpetuity as long as we remember him and the part of our history he exists within. An eternity in Relativity to humanity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

An eternal afterlife already has lasting meaning.

Why?

Anyone who is there will not have a meaningless existence which ends with death.

I don't see how that follows.