Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[Trailblazer]

Your religious beliefs aren't evidence of your religious beliefs.

No, but Jesus is evidence of his religious beliefs.

 

[F1fan]

The difference between the theist and the atheist is that the theist perceives what the atheist doesn't.

Are you claiming theists have some svecial extrasensory perception? If so present the facts to us.

If you can't, then your claim here is a bluff and not true.

Both obtain empirical evidence, and draw rational conclusions based on facts, experiments, theories, a-priori arguments, and hypothesis.

This is not true. Theists don't.

But, the difference is that the theist has more evidence to draw from because his wisdom and insights are more profound and scrutinizing.

False. THeists routinely fail to presnte evidence upon request by critical thinkers.

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.

This is a bold claim. Give us evidence that your are correct. Theists have a pattern of making unverifiable claims.

 

[Trailblazer]

When we die all the meaning we gave to our life ends if there is no afterlife.
What is the point to gaining the whole world but losing our soul? None, it is meaningless.

That just reminded me of what Jesus said, some of my favorite verses.

Matthew 16:24-26 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it. For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Jesus was saying to deny our selfish desires, things we want that are not of God, and to follow in His Way. For whoever will live for self shall lose eternal life, but whoever will sacrifice his life for the sake of Jesus and God shall gain eternal life. So if we live for self and the worldly things we gain the world but we lose our soul because we lose eternal life of the soul.

What I was saying was that those who gain eternal life (who end up there) will know the truth and what is truly important and what is not important.

I agree, but I don't think we have to wait till we die and 'end up there' in order to know what is truly important. I think we can know what is truly important and what is not important while we are still living our lives in this world.
It's all in the Bible, and also in the Baha'i Writings, which concur.

John 12:24-26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit. He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.

Clearly, Jesus is saying that the 'things of this world' are not important. If we love this life so much that we live only for the things of this world then we lose eternal life, which is nearness to God, because all we think about are the things of this world (eat, drink, and be merry) and we lose sight of God.

That does not literally mean we should hate this life and not enjoy what there is in this life to enjoy, it only means that we should not be so attached to life in this world that we lose sight of God.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

 

[Trailblazer]

But this life has meaning when it ends up with a follow up life, an everlasting life, instead of just a hole in the ground.

I would rather say that this life has a purpose when it ends up with a follow up life, an everlasting life, instead of just a hole in the ground, since the purpose of this life is to prepare for the next life.

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet here you are, still talking about Julius Caesar 2,000 years later.

And yet here we are, still talking about Jesus Christ 2,000 years later.

 

[Valjean]

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.

??????
What empirical or objective evidence does the theist rely on? How are you defining "rational"?

"Facts? Experiments? Hypotheses"? Religion isn't an investigative modality. Religion discourages investigation.

"...more evidence to draw on"? Wisdom and insight are evidence?
It's religion that relies on a priori argument, and theories, in science, are the 'fact-based, rational conclusions'.

If religion would stick to its domain of character and spirit; of value, meaning, and purpose, there would be little religion-science contention. But religion oversteps.

 

[Trailblazer]

For what reason is debate between theists and atheists "impossible"?

The debate is not impossible, the resolution of the debate is impossible.

 

[Trailblazer]

I've never understood why living forever is desirable.

Neither have I, and I won't understand until I get to where I am going.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Debate is possible, but resolution of the debate isn't possible.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I feel the same way, I just hope I change my mind later.

 

[idea]

I would rather say that this life has a purpose when it ends up with a follow up life, an everlasting life, instead of just a hole in the ground, since the purpose of this life is to prepare for the next life.

Scientists believe in the laws of thermodynamics- conservation of mass and energy, information cannot be destroyed, nothing magically disappears.

If believers seek eternal union with loved ones, that is what Scientists tell us eternity is too - everything and everyone 's mass and energy mixed together, literally united and connected to all.

 

[Heyo]

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?

You are still clinging to observable evidence. @DNB is explicitly not referring to that. But there is a method to evaluate even "unobservable" evidence: just ask your fellow non scientist if they get the same results. That's how we know that there is no unobservable evidence, there are multiple religions because everyone has had different illusions of evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If believers seek eternal union with loved ones, that is what Scientists tell us eternity is too - everything and everyone 's mass and energy mixed together, literally united and connected to all.

I believe we will be reunited with our loved ones in the spiritual world but I believe we ill all retain our own identity, not that we will be all mixed together as one mass. I believe that because I believe that every person has an individual soul which is their person.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are still clinging to observable evidence. @DNB is explicitly not referring to that. But there is a method to evaluate even "unobservable" evidence: just ask your fellow non scientist if they get the same results. That's how we know that there is no unobservable evidence, there are multiple religions because everyone has had different illusions of evidence.

He did use the word "empirical" which does mean observable. He may have made a mistake.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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

You missed the deliberate irony, I think, in the reference to the “sacred power” of logic. The serious point being that those who place their faith in logic and reason, also have their shibboleths.

I didn’t have a religious world view when I first had a life changing spiritual experience. But for all of us, understanding the world and our experience of it depends upon a frame of reference, which may be personal, cultural, educational etc.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

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.



What other evidence?

Merely for personal satisfaction, I like to acquire enough information to be able to provide a plausible alternative to the 'woo'. Then I weigh my (supposedly and presumed) logic-based phenomenon (natural explanation) against the odds of the proposed hypothetical events (spiritual explanation). As a layman, I'm unfortunately not equipped with the proper tools to discern and dismiss all of the 'woo'.

Just an issue of subjective biases.

 

[blü 2]

I feel the same way, I just hope I change my mind later.

Are you allowed to quit? The draft contract doesn't appear to mention that ─ it only says it'll all be seriously mellow.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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.

The evidence is within you, and therefore by definition, subjective. But all human experience is by definition subjective. Our understanding of objective reality external to ourselves and independent of our perception of it, is a collaborative effort, and requires of us faith in our collaborators.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

This can be understood as a human natural ability. A part/result of biological and cultural evolution, instincts, rationality...