Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[blü 2]

I don't know why you mention science and religion as if the debate between atheists and theists is a debate between science and religion. If the atheist in the debate is a believer in scientism or an empiricist it may end up as a religion vs science debate but scientism is a belief that is not atheism.

Respect for reasoned enquiry (including science) is not based simply on belief.

It's based on the observation that it works better than any presently known alternatives to explore, describe and seek to explain the world external to the self aka objective reality.

I suggest that the reason it doesn't work for supernatural beliefs is that the supernatural isn't found in objective reality ─ if it was, it would be natural, not supernatural ─ and the only manner in which the supernatural is known to exist is as a set of notions in individual brains.

 

[blü 2]

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

I've never understood why living forever is desirable.

We're born with bodies whose purposes are built in, and come with a life-map built into your head ─ be born, learn, pair, breed (these days optional), age, die. Such a trajectory makes sense in terms of evolution ─ the ONLY reason you're here is because every one of your ancestors, right back to abiogenesis, lived long enough to reproduce.

What is the purpose, the goal, the thing capable of achievement so that it gives meaning as well as satisfaction, about living forever? Surely not dancing in a circle singing "God, wow, you're terrific!" all day and all night and all day and all night and ...

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

One man's logic is another man's nonsense.
Or should I say, one man's logic is most woman's nonsense, because,in my experience, trying to use logic with a woman barely ever works.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I've never understood why living forever is desirable.

We're born with bodies whose purposes are built in, and come with a life-map built into your head ─ be born, learn, pair, breed (these days optional), age, die. Such a trajectory makes sense in terms of evolution ─ the ONLY reason you're here is because every one of your ancestors, right back to abiogenesis, lived long enough to reproduce.

What is the purpose, the goal, the thing capable of achievement so that it gives meaning as well as satisfaction, about living forever? Surely not dancing in a circle singing "God, wow, you're terrific!" all day and all night and all day and all night and ...

Endless learning and exploring doesn't appeal to you?

 

[Jose Fly]

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."

And IMO, in most cases the proper response to both of those is....."What do you care what I do with my life?"

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

For what reason is debate between theists and atheists "impossible"?
And is your claim specifically about the debate of god or no god?
Or, are you making a claim about theists and atheists debating on any question?

In my view, a reasoned or rational debate can occur only when both sides proceed from at least a few agreed-upon definitions -- we might call them axioms. In addition, it is necessary to any debate to be at least talking about the same essential subject-matter.

And this is not the case in the debate over the basic world-views of theists and atheists.

I think, in fact, that it really does come down to the sides arguing at 90 degree angles from one another. Think of it as two people trying to solve a question of right and wrong in a given situatation -- let's suggest same-sex marriage for an example -- when one side approaches the question willing to consider only their own values, the facts be damned, while the other approaches it considering only the facts they can ascertain, and values (which are not universally shared, after all) don't merit consideration.

 

[Valjean]

One man's logic is another man's nonsense.
Or should I say, one man's logic is most woman's nonsense, because,in my experience, trying to use logic with a woman barely ever works.

Huh?
How can logic be nonsense? Is there some better way of evaluating truth claims?

 

[Valjean]

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

The problem is, there is no empirical, non-subjective evidence of any god revealing himself to anyone. There are endless claims, to be sure, but these are inconsistent and often incompatible, as well as being unevidenced.

 

[DNB]

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 the theist and the atheist is that the theist perceives what the atheist doesn't. Both obtain empirical evidence, and draw rational conclusions based on facts, experiments, theories, a-priori arguments, and hypothesis. But, the difference is that the theist has more evidence to draw from because his wisdom and insights are more profound and scrutinizing. Not only does the theist see man, but he sees the nature, character and spirit of man. Whereas, all the atheist sees is a mammal.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Imagine a simple machine that puts a rock on top of another rock then takes it off again. Meaningless, right? Now imagine that same machine repeating the same actions for a billion years. Still meaningless. Conclusion, mere repetition or duration does not add meaning to something that has none.

Now let's consider someone who has finally achieved his heart's desire and then dies. That brief experience has intense meaning to that person. Conclusion, something short in duration and never repeated can have meaning.

General conclusion, meaning is independent of duration or repeatability.

Now let's watch a sunset. Amazing, right? Now let's do it for eternity. Eventually boring, probably. The same thing can have different meaning values to different people at different times. Conclusion, meaning is not contained in the "thing" itself, but is generated by a sentient observer.

General conclusion, meaning is essentially subjective and ephemeral. But it exists.

I agree with your post, the premise and conclusion.

Additionally: I wonder if the motion of the rocks could possibly, if they were of the correct elements, kick off something akin to the Kreb's cycle/citric acid cycle through the energy created by the machine's assistance?

Joke: God is the Almighty Omniscient and Omnipresent Amazing Drinking Bird toy! You heard it here first folks, He lifts the rock, He drops the rock, He is the Rock, He is a Roc:

 

[Valjean]

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?

Sacred power? Redemption?
Why do theists always see reason, logic or science through the lenses of religion?

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.

But this is a common psychological phenomenon, that doesn't necessarily involve submission to God. Are you sure you aren't interpreting it through your own religious world-view?

 

[InChrist]

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."

Maybe debate isn’t possible, but I think conversation is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The difference between the theist and the atheist is that the theist perceives what the atheist doesn't. Both obtain empirical evidence, and draw rational conclusions based on facts, experiments, theories, a-priori arguments, and hypothesis. But, the difference is that the theist has more evidence to draw from because his wisdom and insights are more profound and scrutinizing. Not only does the theist see man, but he sees the nature, character and spirit of man. Whereas, all the atheist sees is a mammal.

Or perhaps it is just wishful thinking on the part of theists. I am curious, empirical evidence is observable, measurable, and repeatable. Wat sort of empirical evidence is there for a god? What was measured? What was weighed? What was photographed? Empirical evidence does not vary depending upon the observer. So I am really curious as to what evidence you are talking about?

 

[Valjean]

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?

Similar situations may engender similar conscious or neurological responses, but interpretations of the reality underlying these are subjective and culturally interpreted. There is no consistent, cross-cultural explanation of individual experience, and certainly no actual, measurable, testable, evidence of any invisible god's hand in it.

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.

But there's no 'science' involved, just a common, cultural interpretation. An observable neurological mechanism may be involved, but no supernatural source is indicated.

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.

How does religion get "closer to right?" It's all subjective guesswork. There's no testing involved, or collection of further evidence. In fact, collection of further evidence and testing is usually actively discouraged, lest it upset religion's supernatural claims.
The fact that science is constantly increasing its knowledge, challenging its own interpretations, and improving its explanations, is its strength.

 

[Valjean]

And your religious non beliefs aren't evidence for your religious non beliefs.
And science does not supply evidence for non belief.

Of course not. It doesn't need to. Non-belief is the epistemic default; the blank slate we begin with.

If anything imo the more we find out the more evidence we have for God and so religious beliefs.

What evidence would that be?
If this were true, belief in God would be pretty much universal, with the highest percentage of believers being the scientists amassing the evidence.

But people who accept only empirical evidence have no evidence either way because science gives none and they reject any other evidence there is.

What actual, non-empirical evidence is there? Subjective evidence isn't reliable evidence.

 

[Valjean]

I don't require evidence for non-beliefs.

Do you require evidence for not believing in alien abductions or bigfoot or quetzalcoatl or the monsters under your bed or "gooblydockbloblo" or anything else ones imagination can produce?

Off course not.
Evidence is what you need to positively believe something.
Not believing X is what you do when there is no evidence to justify believing X.

So what you said there makes no sense at all and seems nothing but an attempt to dodge the point I made.

Wait.... Are you saying there is no gooblydockbloblo?

 

[blü 2]

Endless learning and exploring doesn't appeal to you?

It's the "endless" part that doesn't appeal.

As Woody Allen is said to have said, "Eternity is very long ─ especially towards the end."

Or as the poet said,

HEAVEN​

One hundred
billion
years on
what will you say
to your true love?
​

It's those well-named deadlines that give purpose and meaning. Without them, there's no point, no hurry, nothing that matters or will ever matter.

 

[Valjean]

I don't need empirical evidence for my religious beliefs. I have the evidence that you do not see as evidence.

The non empirical evidence.

You have subjective evidence, tradition, and popular opinion. Historically, these have led to all kinds of incompatible opinions and beliefs. Subjective "evidence" is evidence only to yourself.

 

[Trailblazer]

On the contrary, life becomes meaningless when it is everlasting. And the time we have here more valuable when we know there’s an end.

The belief in another life after this life does not make this life any less valuable.
Life in THIS world is not everlasting, and we only have ONE life in this world, so it is very valuable.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

It has already happened.