Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know it.

Sure you do.

 

[DNB]

??????
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.

Why are there so many religious edifices/temples/altars/shrines built around the world since history began?

 

[DNB]

In my opinion, that is a lot of self-serving tripe, backed up by the usual nothing-at-all, except your own good opinion of yourself.

...you're on a forum amongst people who are of multiple and varied religions, and many of these religions have existed since the beginning of history - has the evidence eluded you?

 

[Valjean]

Why are there so many religious edifices/temples/altars/shrines built around the world since history began?

??????????
Is this an argumentum ad populum?

...you're on a forum amongst people who are of multiple and varied religions, and many of these religions have existed since the beginning of history - has the evidence eluded you?

Still waiting for the evidence.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

...you're on a forum amongst people who are of multiple and varied religions, and many of these religions have existed since the beginning of history - has the evidence eluded you?

Really? Since the beginning of history? And when was that, in your view?

See, far as I know, the earliest texts known to us are from the 35th to the 32nd centuries BCE, with pictorgraphic characters precursor to cueiform. Then, we get the Epic of Gilgamesh -- how many people still believe in the Bull of Heaven, or

• Ea - god of wisdom & magic
• Aruru - goddess of birth
• Siduri - goddess of wine making
• Ishtar - goddess of love & war
• Shamash- sun-god
• Ninsun - the wild cow
• Enlil - supreme god on earth?

Following that, Egyptian Hieroglyphics. Which of the beliefs from those periods are still with us, and where are their temples, churches, do you know? And where is the evidence for the existence of all these great and powerful gods and goddesses?

 

[Trailblazer]

??????????
Is this an argumentum ad populum?

No, it's not an argumentum ad populum.

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so." Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

 

[idea]

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.

So, you do not believe in the trinity? I thought Christians had the same view, everyone perfected, equal, united with the trinity?

 

[Trailblazer]

So, you do not believe in the trinity? I thought Christians had the same view, everyone perfected, equal, united with the trinity?

I don't know how my belief in having an individual soul in the afterlife is related to belief in the trinity.
Baha'is believe in a Trinity, but not in the same way that Christians do.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

So, you do not believe in the trinity? I thought Christians had the same view, everyone perfected, equal, united with the trinity?

Also the Hindi and their Trimurti.

 

[RestlessSoul]

??????????
Is this an argumentum ad populum?

Still waiting for the evidence.

Neolithic stone circle and surrounding earthworks, Avebury, Buckinghamshire,England. I took these photos yesterday, 4th December 2022. There were a few people quietly praying or meditating at some of the stones, but out of respect I didn’t photograph them.

Evidence, I would suggest, that for as long as there has been human society, there has been a powerful urge to connect with the infinite and the eternal. Imagine how much effort was required to place those stones there, and construct the earthworks, using only Neolithic technology. It’s almost as if every society in human history placed a high value on spiritual as well as material concerns. You can call it an argumentum ad populam if you that helps you dismiss an inconvenient reality, but is it unreasonable to wonder if perhaps all religious people have not been completely misguided in their impulse to connect with the infinite?

The church tower in one of the photos, St James at Avebury, is sited amidst the Neolithic monuments. It’s foundations date from the 12th century.

 

[Brian2]

None of that is evidence.
Otherwise there is evidence that Mormonism is true, Joseph Smith received revelations, as did Prince Arjuna and Hinduism is true as well. Same with the Cargo Cults and almost every religion ever. Including the modern people who claim revelations from Jesus.
If the gospels writing about miracles is evidence so is records in every scripture ever. But you are not investigating Mormonism and Hinduism because you probably know this isn't evidence.
There is no evidence of prophecies. Mark used the OT when writing his story. He used Psalms and Kings verbatim at times. So he clearly knew the prophecies and wrote the character as the predicted messiah.
None of that is evidence except for one thing. It's evidence that Greek Hellenism and Persian Zoroastrianism was used by the Israelites when making an updated offshoot of Judaism.
Myths turning into other myths using myths from different nations isn't evidence of anything except syncretism.

It's true that if the gospel writing is evidence, so is records in every scripture ever.
It is not too hard to whittle them down however to the possible real scriptures that are a revelation from God.
Those scriptures are even evidence of syncretism at times.

There are ways to find empirical evidence even in historical text. If historians write about a day when people rose from their graves and walked around, earthquakes and the sun went out. Also if historians from other continents also wrote about the sun and earthquakes were reported in many different nations on the same day it would be good evidence.
Historians in that area did not write that. After Christianity started and churches began forming then historians wrote there were people who followed the gospels. That's it.
That is evidence it's just a story people began to follow. Use of older myth is evidence of religious syncretism rather than actual events taking place.
In fact the myths used were from the 2 cultures who occupied Israel. A small amount of other material - Romulus, (Roman) and some older Greek literature is also found in Mark, things the authors were aware of.
Evidence.

Yes I guess it is possible to see what is written in the bible in the writings of other cultures and sometimes we see that.
You seem to make inconsistent claims. You want Mark to have made up a story from potential prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures and also to have gotten the gospel accounts from other cultures which you say have themes in their writings which are similar. Which one is it, or is it both?

 

[Brian2]

Even if we disregard inner inconsistency of the Bible there is not much real history.

Inner inconsistencies have been mainly answered.
There is real history in the Bible if we listen to the right historians. There are the historians who attack the history in the Bible however and claim to be right.
It is not as if there is only one pov amongst historians.

 

[Brian2]

And Cleopatra, Nefertiti, Tutankhamun, Sun Tzu, Gilgamesh, Hammurabi... This doesn't say what I'm sure you meant it to say.


And? One doesn't need to know about it, to live on in fame and renown (Or the inverse, and to have one's name and legacy tarnished and dishonored). It is not about pride, but what we leave behind as legacy for our descendants.

Deyr fé, deyja frændr, - Cattle die, | and kinsmen die,
deyr sjalfr it sama, - And so one dies one's self;
en orðstírr deyr aldregi, - But a noble name | will never die,
hveim er sér góðan getr. - If good renown one gets.

Deyr fé, deyja frændr, - Cattle die, | and kinsmen die,
deyr sjalfr it sama, - And so one dies one's self;
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: - One thing now | that never dies,
dómr um dauðan hvern. - The fame of a dead man's deeds.

~Hávamál - s.76-77

If the dead man does not know about anything, then for him, his deeds die with him. It is only for others that his deeds survive, for a time.
The person does not actually live on really btw unless there is another life.
So I ask the same question you asked. And?

 

[Brian2]

Science works by empiricism and induction and therefore can never make absolute statements. As science freely acknowledges, nothing protects its conclusions from unknown unknowns. As I said, its justification is not that it's perfect but that it's better than any presently-known alternative. Its success is due to the fact that it works in reality.

So science can never say that there is no God or supernatural.

I don't "ignore" any real evidence. All you have to do to persuade me that the supernatural has objective existence by giving a satisfactory demonstration of the claim. At that point the supernatural will become natural and be studied by the physical sciences.

The only reason that isn't presently the case is the absence of any such demonstration.

Which is why I said, and say, that the only manner in which the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts, ideas, in individual brains.

So the supernatural can exist and science know nothing about it and cannot study it and call it natural.

See above. You make the claim. I reply, "Show me." No one shows me.

But it's not too late. Show me supernatural events out here in reality, independently of anyone's personal mentation.

So are you saying you don't accept the reports of others and that you need to see it yourself before you will believe and therefore you believe the supernatural is just something dreamed up?
I suppose that is the same as wanting science to have seen and studied supernatural before you believe.
So you attribute more to science than even science attributes to itself.

 

[Heyo]

Evidence, I would suggest, that for as long as there has been human society, there has been a powerful urge to connect with the infinite and the eternal.

I agree. Evidence for the urge to see the infinite and eternal - not evidence for the infinite and eternal. Superstition has been a beneficial trait that was selected for. But the need to be superstitious is no longer a given and it will go away.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree. Evidence for the urge to see the infinite and eternal - not evidence for the infinite and eternal. Superstition has been a beneficial trait that was selected for. But the need to be superstitious is no longer a given and it will go away.

No, I doubt that. Because the wet dream of naive empiricism and objective rationalism is as much too simple as some forms of religion.

To me religion is not a special positive or negative. It is a part of being a human of in one version what can be termed ultimate concern. But that is not something science can answer.
In practice religion is in sense natural or supernatural, but those are both natural as a part of the natural world.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I agree. Evidence for the urge to see the infinite and eternal - not evidence for the infinite and eternal. Superstition has been a beneficial trait that was selected for. But the need to be superstitious is no longer a given and it will go away.

Aha. Well you see now, I think you’ll have a house on the moon before humans evolve away from what you call superstition and I call the need for spiritual connection.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Aha. Well you see now, I think you’ll have a house on the moon before humans evolve away from what you call superstition and I call the need for spiritual connection.

You might find this Ted Talk at the University of Essex interesting.

 

[Heyo]

Aha. Well you see now, I think you’ll have a house on the moon before humans evolve away from what you call superstition and I call the need for spiritual connection.

I agree, evolution is a slow process.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Neolithic stone circle and surrounding earthworks, Avebury, Buckinghamshire,England. I took these photos yesterday, 4th November 2022. There were a few people quietly praying or meditating at some of the stones, but out of respect I didn’t photograph them.

View attachment 69117


View attachment 69118

View attachment 69119

View attachment 69120


Evidence, I would suggest, that for as long as there has been human society, there has been a powerful urge to connect with the infinite and the eternal. Imagine how much effort was required to place those stones there, and construct the earthworks, using only Neolithic technology. It’s almost as if every society in human history placed a high value on spiritual as well as material concerns. You can call it an argumentum ad populam if you that helps you dismiss an inconvenient reality, but is it unreasonable to wonder if perhaps all religious people have not been completely misguided in their impulse to connect with the infinite?

The church tower in one of the photos, St James at Avebury, is sited amidst the Neolithic monuments. It’s foundations date from the 12th century.

I have to say, although I am in no way religious, I did find the Avebury Circle to be a most interesting experience -- far more "spiritually" impressive, to me, then Stonehenge.