Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[Brian2]

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

If Julius Caesar is judged worthy of eternal life then he might feel proud of his achievements or might be ashamed of them but I imagine he would see them as nothing compared to compared to some poor dude who helped others all his life with his meagre resources or compared to someone who managed to control their desires and feelings and to love their enemy.

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".

When we die all that we are and all that we have done is gone forever if there is no other life.
So what is the ultimate purpose of our lives if we just disappear?
What is it that gives your life purpose?

 

[Brian2]

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

So his name and achievements survived in history. But he is dead and has no share in that. For him, as for each of us it is the same story. Some are remembered for a while but they have no share in that. Any plans and purposes we had for our lives are gone when we die and never return if there is no afterlife.
So be content with what you have and don't struggle too much to be rich or famous or powerful. It is all vanity and meaningless in the end.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It has already happened.

I don't doubt that you believe this.

 

[Brian2]

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 ...

Yes sitting on a cloud with a harp praising God forever is not that appealing. Some may be made for that sort of thing however or we might change our mind when we see God.
But we don't know what eternity will bring really.

 

[Brian2]

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.

Scientism is a belief that attributes too much to science than it is capable of doing.
You ignore supernatural experiences and claims of miracles and prophecies etc so you can say the supernatural exists only is people's heads. You are not alone.
Science would have found it if it is there is a belief that attributes too much to the capabilities of science.

 

[Brian2]

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 does not need to be empirical. I'm not sure how it could be.
There are many claims of supernatural revelations. That could be evidence of them being true I guess.
The inconsistencies could be evidence of spirits that want to deceive humans.
There is evidence of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible and evidence of miracles and even resurrection from different sources in the gospels.
So it is not completely true that they are unevidenced.

 

[joelr]

The evidence does not need to be empirical. I'm not sure how it could be.
There are many claims of supernatural revelations. That could be evidence of them being true I guess.
The inconsistencies could be evidence of spirits that want to deceive humans.
There is evidence of fulfilled prophecies in the Bible and evidence of miracles and even resurrection from different sources in the gospels.
So it is not completely true that they are unevidenced.

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.

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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

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.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Yes, that's what I've been saying. Personal truth and indoctrination is not the same as actual truth and evidence.

Religion works (as long as you can believe it). I don't deny that. It used to work for me. It brings happiness and peace to many people's lives. This is a good thing. But this doesn't confirm its veracity. It works regardless of its attachment to reality.

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

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

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

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

So his name and achievements survived in history. But he is dead and has no share in that.

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

 

[Alien826]

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:

Heh heh. I think I'll worship the almighty Roc from a very safe distance.

I had another thought. The bird is essentially transferring energy (heat) from itself (and the room) to the water in the glass. So, eventually the whole thing will come to a stop when the water reaches the ambient temperature of the room*. This models the eventual state of total entropy in the universe! What a perfect illustration of the meaningless of everything**.

* Theologians debate endlessly about whether the beak will rest in the water or out of it.

** Apart from the Roc of course (looks nervously over shoulder).

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

You can't imagine a world where boredom doesn't exist?
I find it very odd to claim that deadlines somehow cause all meaning in life. On billion years on, you will know how to love better than ever but still have more to learn.
When you start to realize that life doesn't end you will start to understand that there are no reasons to fear death. You just haven't grasped infinity.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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

C'mon get real. Those people never came close to changing the world the way Christ has and still does.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

I thought you weren't talking about "ordinary folks", which I interpreted to mean: anybody could say anything about anything.

Rather I thought you were talking about "theologians and philosophers", which I interpreted to mean: people serious about debate.

You claim that, in a debate about the right and wrong of same-sex marriage, theists and atheists don't agree about the subject matter? But... you just stated the subject matter of that debate!
What does the theist think the subject matter is?
What does the atheist think the subject matter is?
Which ones don't think they are debating the right and wrong of same-sex marriage?

Are you claiming that theists don't care about facts and atheists don't care about values, or vice versa?
Can you give some examples of assertions or definitions that one makes that the other doesn't agree on that are essential to the debate?

 

[Trailblazer]

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

I don't think we can opt out of an afterlife, if there is one we are in it for the long haul.
That's one reason it is called "eternal life."

 

[Trailblazer]

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

Maybe we are still talking about those people but why? It is not because they have affected millions of lives the way Jesus has.

 

[Trailblazer]

I don't doubt that you believe this.

I know it.

 

[blü 2]

Scientism is a belief that attributes too much to science than it is capable of doing.

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.

You ignore supernatural experiences and claims of miracles and prophecies etc so you can say the supernatural exists only is people's heads. You are not alone.

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.

Science would have found it if it is there is a belief that attributes too much to the capabilities of science.

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.

 

[vulcanlogician]

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 get the impression you were putting on your Stephen Jay Gould hat when you wrote this part, as you invoked him in the preceding paragraph, but I think this is too narrow a view of religion. Some religion goes out of it's way to make claims about the natural world. ("A worldwide flood happened 6,000 years ago... the entire universe is not much older than that." -- just one example). Other religious outlooks (even within Christianity) only speak of metaphysical things and are careful not to make truth statements about nature.

"Religion" is complicated word that refers to all sorts of things... and means different things to different people. Even when we're talking about professionals. Philosophers have taken the time to suss out (workable) precise definitions of religion, but as I get into below, there really ins't an intransible gulf between atheist philosophers and theist philosophers as there is between everyday folks.

Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

Not sure about theologians, but plenty of theistic philosophers can understand atheism and begin with the premise that "we don't know if God exists or not." William James and John Hick are two theistic philosophers who give atheism its due and go to great lengths to point out how plausible it is. The same goes for atheistic philosophers. (I don't mean atheist philosophers like Daniel Dennett who sometimes argue on atheism's behalf. I mean philosophers who ask questions about religion and also happen to be atheists.)

Though it can be a pretty dubious undertaking to measure "progress in philosophy," I think progress has been made in philosophy as far as how as what must be true if God does (or does not) exist. Philosophy aims for a comprehensive understanding of things. Theistic and atheistic philosophers see eye to eye on a great deal.

They might not have figured out once and for all whether God exists. But they've made clear a lot of things remain puzzling and stifling in the public debate arena.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Maybe we are still talking about those people but why? It is not because they have affected millions of lives the way Jesus has.

C'mon get real. Those people never came close to changing the world the way Christ has and still does.

And yet...