Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[Brian2]

There are things that Julius Ceasar did which had lasting effect which persist to this day, 2000 years later.
The lasting effect of people's actions don't necessarily end at their deaths.

Yes I guess 2000 years if close to forever.
But Julius Caesar is dead and so all that glory or power or whatever ended for him.
But we look back on it and pretend that Julius Caesar lives on in what he did, if this life is all you see.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The quote you are responding to, wasn't about your belief or on what grounds you believe those beliefs.
Instead I was correcting your mistakes about non-belief.

The non empirical evidence.

Repeating claims is the only thing you can do it seems.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Personally, I say the opposite... A story only has meaning if it has a beginning, middle and end.
I wouldn't bother to watch an everlasting movie. What would be the point?
To me, an everlasting movie / life sounds about as meaningless as it gets.

What if?

That is exactly correct, is exactly the point, and is exactly what we're experiencing?

Correct: Without the risk and finality of it all, it would be boring.

Point: If you were God, you exist eternally. Perhaps merely for entertainment you would create... this.

Exactly: Thus, here we are.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In regard to duration, I would argue that the largest possible sample of finite time, would still be infinitely shorter in span than the most diminutive sample of infinite time.

My point wasn't about duration.

It was about the obvious false claim that the impact or meaning of people's actions / life, ends at their deaths.

Clearly that isn't true.

 

[Brian2]

Another vague abstract statement.

The statements are too blunt. You can't handle the truth.

Sounds like pascal's wager, but again doesn't address my question.

I was thinking the same myself.

You are again just repeating the claim that I am asking you to explain and justify.

I know, it's a hard question. I've asked theists this before when it came up. None was ever able to give a satisfactory answer.
It always turned out that it is just something that people "say".

Personally, I say the opposite... A story only has meaning if it has a beginning, middle and end.
I wouldn't bother to watch an everlasting movie. What would be the point?
To me, an everlasting movie / life sounds about as meaningless as it gets.

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.

 

[Brian2]

The quote you are responding to, wasn't about your belief or on what grounds you believe those beliefs.
Instead I was correcting your mistakes about non-belief..

Thanks

Repeating claims is the only thing you can do it seems.

Are you saying that you accept the non empirical evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes I guess 2000 years if close to forever.

I didn't say that.
I'm merely responding to your false claim that the meaning / impact of someone's life ends at their death.

But Julius Caesar is dead and so all that glory or power or whatever ended for him.

Are you saying that if there is an afterlife, that Ceasar's "glory and power or whatever" continues on?

But we look back on it and pretend that Julius Caesar lives on in what he did, if this life is all you see.

We don't need to pretend. It is factually so.
He just isn't here to see it. Perhaps that is what scares you. The idea of not being there to witness it.
Perhaps that's really the explanation of your statements regarding "meaning". The idea of not being there to witness it, is what bothers you. Psychological issues with your own mortality. We all have it. We all deal with it differently.

I also think that that is the main reason why people find the idea of an afterlife so appealing. It makes it easier to cope. And then they will come up with all kinds of reasons to rationalize such belief. Like saying that "life has no meaning without it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The statements are too blunt. You can't handle the truth.

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.

You already said that.
I asked "why".

If you can't answer or don't know, just say so.
It's just a waste of time to continue going in circles like this.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Yes I guess 2000 years if close to forever.
But Julius Caesar is dead and so all that glory or power or whatever ended for him.
But we look back on it and pretend that Julius Caesar lives on in what he did, if this life is all you see.

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

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Are you saying that you accept the non empirical evidence?

I can't answer that unless you show me said evidence and explain how it's evidence.
Like I asked already.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Really? What did He DO that you couldn't have done yourself?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I find such statements to be some species of insulting. At least they are intellectually dishonest.

"if you search and believe you've found it, it is evidence / evident, but if you don't then it means you aren't honest".

Kind of like
"I am correct and if you don't believe that, it's because you are wrong"

It assumes an absolute certainty on your part. You have totally discarded the very real possibility that it's you who is incorrect. To the point that if someone doesn't agree, it means they are being "dishonest".

Well I’m sorry you feel insulted, but it seems to me, to quote from a well known movie, that’s just pride ****ing with you. And pride only hurts. It never helps.

That voice in your head that tells you you’ve been insulted? That isn’t your voice, and it isn’t your friend. That’s your ego, and it’s your enemy.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

The world would be a much better place if religion was only about the "inner world."

All of the conflicts between religion and science are the result of religion making claims or proclaiming edicts about things in the "outer world."

 

[RestlessSoul]

Really? What did He DO that you couldn't have done yourself?

Relieved me of a seemingly hopeless condition of mind and body. And no, that isn’t something I was in any way capable of doing for myself. Sometimes it’s only when we acknowledge our own powerlessness, that we are driven to call on a Power greater than ourselves.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well I’m sorry you feel insulted,

I don't "feel" insulted nor am I. Because I know (or hope at least lol) that you don't mean it that way.

but it seems to me, to quote from a well known movie, that’s just pride ****ing with you. And pride only hurts. It never helps.

It's not.
You are loading up mere disagreement with dishonesty. You are assuming/implying that if someone disagrees, that they aren't really disagreeing but instead just lying about it.
I'm sorry you can't see that.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't "feel" insulted nor am I. Because I know (or hope at least lol) that you don't mean it that way.



It's not.
You are loading up mere disagreement with dishonesty. You are assuming/implying that if someone disagrees, that they aren't really disagreeing but instead just lying about it.
I'm sorry you can't see that.

And I’m sorry that’s what you see. What we have here, is a failure to communicate. Which would seem to confirm the premise of the thread.

 

[Quintessence]

Do you view an afterlife as a prerequisite for purpose or meaning?

Not at all. The only prerequisite for finding purpose or meaning is a thinking brain capable of language. Being a storyteller, basically. And humans are the storytelling species.

The OP read to me like a confusing jumble of different concepts that, while interrelated, are not quite the same. So I'm not sure if they are talking about atheism versus theism, religion versus irreligion, or afterlives versus nihilism. I don't necessarily agree with these binaries, but these binaries seem assumed by the opening post. The last one in particular really confused me for reasons that should be apparent with what I wrote above.

 

[Nakosis]

" while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."

Interesting but not my view.

As long as you are happy, by whatever means, then the life is not wasted.
If religion makes you happy great.
However, if religion makes you miserable then perhaps you would be happier without it.
Religions is not necessary for happiness even though the hope of happiness is perhaps why they stick with it.

I argue that religion is not the only path to happiness.

 

[Alien826]

Personally, I say the opposite... A story only has meaning if it has a beginning, middle and end.
I wouldn't bother to watch an everlasting movie. What would be the point?
To me, an everlasting movie / life sounds about as meaningless as it gets.

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.

 

[Ponder This]

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."

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?