Is it a waste of my time to try having honest, logical debates with theists?

[Rational Agnostic]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

It really depends on the theist. Some are quite reasonable, but many are not. A good litmus test is to ask them if any amount of evidence would make them change their mind about their religion. If they admit that no evidence could ever change their mind, then don't bother debating with them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I understand that. I ask for evidence a lot from theists to back their claims (which I honestly don't expect, but who knows, maybe someone will surprise me some day) but I'm usually ok with letting that slide if they can produce a compelling argument. It'd honestly be awesome if a theist could produce some good arguments that stumped me.

There's no slam-dunk argument for any explanation, we're all taking our best guesses, as long as we acknowledge our beliefs, our faith as such we can all get along can't we?

 

[Scott C.]

In my experience, there are at least several theists (and nontheists) on RF that you can have generally useful and informative debates or discussions with. If you don't know of any, then perhaps you haven't been lucky, or perhaps you haven't looked hard enough. @Scott C., for instance, is an excellent example of a theist you can have fruitful debates and discussions with. And @sayak83 is another excellent example of a theist you can have fruitful debates and discussions with. There are dozens of others, too.

Thank you, that's the nicest thing anyone ever said to me here, who usually disagrees with me!

 

[Mock Turtle]

There is no proof, only evidence:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

I think the level for evidence being proof is what matters - with many of us not finding most religious 'evidence' anywhere near being sufficient as to amounting to any proof of the things claimed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no proof, only evidence:

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:
Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement:

There's evidence for God in the sense that there are facts that, when we combine them with other facts we don't have, could be part of a case for God.

For instance, for the claim "God must exist because angels sent by God fed my cats half a bag of treats last night," the fact that there are two cats and half a bag of treats in my house is evidence that the claim is true. After all, if I had no cats, then the claim would fail.

There's lots of evidence out there for every claim: true claims, outlandish claims, even demonstrably false claims.

By my understanding of "evidence," there's plenty of evidence for God... but there's also plenty of evidence against God. And while there are arguments for God that have some of the evidence they need to support them, the pieces they're missing are critical.

 

[syo]

talk between atheists and theists is a waste of time, in my opinion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just providing evidence and believing what you are given is like asking a cook to give you food he can finally give you but you never talk about and take interest in how the cook defines his food just you want him to give it so you can eat it.

If someone claiming to be a cook can't produce food, then this is a sign that he may not actually be a cook.

It ignores the fact that evidence in religion doesnt exist apart from the believer and culture to which that "evidence" comes from.

This is not how evidence about real phenomena in the physical world works.

If you dont go deeper and understand cultural and even take interest, you'll fall for any "supernatural" evidence they give you and if it aligns with Your definition of god, youd be satisfied. Its ignoring the complexity of god in relation to religion and taking for granted what you expect isnt always true.

You have to go deeper than evidence.

The time to decide what sort of relationship to have with something is after you've confirmed it exists at all.

 

[Mock Turtle]

talk between atheists and theists is a waste of time, in my opinion.

Grunts agreement - not.

 

[Thief]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

dogmatic headnodders are the worst!!!!!

not only have they filled their heads with superstition and ritual
they feel everyone else should just drop whatever and follow along

then there's the non-believers pointing their fingers at congregation

two polarized personas throwing stones at each other.

 

[Quintessence]

It really depends on the theist. Some are quite reasonable, but many are not. A good litmus test is to ask them if any amount of evidence would make them change their mind about their religion. If they admit that no evidence could ever change their mind, then don't bother debating with them.

That's a bit presumptuous, though. Accepting the gods may or may not be about evidence in the first place. It can also be about story, ritual, desire, aesthetics, or semantics. Though I suppose in a fashion, you're right that it's a waste of time to debate theism in situations where evidence isn't the point. Debates like that become nonsense like "prove to me your favorite color is blue" or "your gods aren't really gods and you aren't allowed to call them that," perhaps "prove to me your mythic story is factually true (in spite of that not being the darned point)."

I'm tempted to start a parallel thread about why it is pointless trying to discuss mythology and story with atheists. Except I don't believe that's true, I don't believe in generalizing about atheists like that, and I think an awful lot of theists don't understand mythology either.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think the level for evidence being proof is what matters - with many of us not finding most religious 'evidence' anywhere near being sufficient as to amounting to any proof of the things claimed.

and it's the kind of evidence that matters...

If we see 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, the only direct empirical evidence is for a naturalistic mechanism, the waves, accidentally washing them up that way.

But unless we can utterly rule it out, we know that intelligent agency is the less improbable answer.


In other words; chance must be granted a playing field entirely to itself to win out, not so the other way around, a theist does not have to rule out natural mechanisms to remain the better explanation

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

dogmatic headnodders are the worst!!!!!

not only have they filled their heads with superstition and ritual
they feel everyone else should just drop whatever and follow along

Did you mean to describe yourself?

 

[Libski]

Our emotions come from our mind. We react to external and internal stimuli and how that stimuli affects us is what emotion(s) we express. The mind as in logic translate those emotions to be whether you label it coming from god or from thoughts or.... our interpretations and attributions of our emotions to say god or psychology, at its core isnt spiritual.

What makes it spiritual is how we relate our emotions (our senses) and thoughts to the beliefs we already have. So, if one already believes in god, his feelings is confirmed by his bias would be attributed to god. Likewise, when I practiced Nichiren Buddhism, the same explanation of feelings christians give, Nichiren Buddhist feel the same from their object of worship. They too have faith.

Since we are not aliens to each other, your emotions about god is the same as the emotions someone else has with, say, Vishnu. No one is special in those regards but to call that experience god(s) as a universal term for all is stretching it.

The OP is wondering if you (believers) can hold a conversation about the existence of your gods, moreso than point out he exists and why. We want to know how. We know why (to save you), we know who (creator), we no what (description in scripture),

But the How is more complex than saying "just have faith" or "you cant know god by logic but by the heart." Although honest statements, theys are cop outs (excuses) to dismiss discussing the complexity of god.

I mean, I value expression; so, if a person like a christian cant express the person of their devotion, it leads me (and probably others) to believe its only your beliefs. Sometimes we cannot express the core of our beliefs/heart/emotions/mind but if it is a fact, it goes beyond subjectivity. Either he exists or he does not regardless.

But how would we know that if you stick to belief, faith, and heart without going deeper to the facts?

Edit.

Who is God? He is love (not worldly love; selfless love).

He is righteous and just.

As for attributing things to God because I believe? In a way, describing peace is like describing blue to a blind person. Nothing compares to it and it’s really only understood by being experienced - in my opinion - or maybe I’m just no good at describing it.

I was drawn to Buddhism at one point until I read ‘the easiest way to enlightenment is love’. Why have any other route? Why aren’t more people enlightened if it only takes seven years?

As for a universal God, yes, I believe that He is the one true God.

 

[atanu]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

Isn't it presumptive that you can judge honesty and rationality always with all theists?

 

[Mock Turtle]

and it's the kind of evidence that matters...

If we see 'HELP' written on a deserted island beach with rocks, the only direct empirical evidence is for a naturalistic mechanism, the waves, accidentally washing them up that way.

But unless we can utterly rule it out, we know that intelligent agency is the less improbable answer.

Not for some of us - where the whole chaotic nature of life - all struggling to exist with hardly a regard as to any other unless they are deemed food - tends not to imply any intelligent agency. Unless this agency so likes conflict and carnage.

In other words; chance must be granted a playing field entirely to itself to win out, not so the other way around, a theist does not have to rule out natural mechanisms to remain the better explanation

I think the non-religious have enough answers to satisfy them - well, not exactly satisfying, but sufficient to explain all the life we know - including human life. No other agencies necessary, and although I'm a bit agnostic on this (any creator), I am mainly with the atheists.

 

[Thief]

Did you mean to describe yourself?

got no dogma
got no congregation
got no ritual
or beads
or knee rug
or funny little hats

pretty much on my own

as in rogue theologian

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a bit presumptuous, though. Accepting the gods may or may not be about evidence in the first place. It can also be about story, ritual, desire, aesthetics, or semantics.

The only thing on your list that's relevant here is semantics. The question is about the literal existence of an actual god.

Someone who sees value in stories about God or who finds mythology about gods meaningful but doesn't believe in the literal existence of an actual god is an atheist, not a theist.

Semantics is relevant to the question at hand, since we need to know what "god" means to say whether one literally exists... but it can be a perfectly reasonable response to a theist to say "I agree that (the Sun/the universe/love/whatnot) exists, but I don't consider it a god, so you're a theist and I'm not even though we both believe in the same physical stuff."

Though I suppose in a fashion, you're right that it's a waste of time to debate theism in situations where evidence isn't the point. Debates like that become nonsense like "prove to me your favorite color is blue" or "your gods aren't really gods and you aren't allowed to call them that," perhaps "prove to me your mythic story is factually true (in spite of that not being the darned point)."

If someone is asking about the literal existence of God, then evidence is the point. If you respond to someone asking about the literal existence of gods by telling them how you find mythology about gods meaningful, then you're the one who's muddying the waters.

A person can be a theist or an atheist and appreciate - or not - mythic stories. Still, at the end of the day, a person either accepts that a literal god or gods exist or they don't.

Trying to answer the question "do you think gods exist" with your answer to "do you find mythology about gods meaningful"... that's missing the point.

I'm tempted to start a parallel thread about why it is pointless trying to discuss mythology and story with atheists. Except I don't believe that's true, I don't believe in generalizing about atheists like that, and I think an awful lot of theists don't understand mythology either.

Right: theism and mythology are separate things. Appreciating mythology doesn't make a person a theist, and being a theist doesn't make a person appreciate mythology.

 

[dfnj]

Why is it so hard for many theists to provide/follow logical arguments? You would think, that given the amount of time their religions have been around they would have some well reasoned arguments ready to go. Yet when I try to have an honest and rational debate/discussion with a theist about religion it usually ends with them name calling, constantly ignoring/trying to change the subject, or walking away from the debate/discussion. So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

There's a funny theist expression I heard once: "You only hate and criticize in other people what you do like about yourself."

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Not for some of us - where the whole chaotic nature of life - all struggling to exist with hardly a regard as to any other unless they are deemed food - tends not to imply any intelligent agency. Unless this agency so likes conflict and carnage.

God made a world with no struggle, no conflict, no pain, grief, anger, unpleasantness whatsoever. And this world still exists today- for Jellyfish. And hence they experience no friendship, comfort, empathy, joy, love, kindness either

would you trade places? me neither

I think the non-religious have enough answers to satisfy them - well, not exactly satisfying, but sufficient to explain all the life we know - including human life. No other agencies necessary, and although I'm a bit agnostic on this (any creator), I am mainly with the atheists.

And classical physics was a very satisfying explanation for all physical reality. ToE was a logical extrapolation of this simplistic reductionist Victorian age model of reality.

The simplest explanation is always the most tempting, but nature has shown little regard for Occam's razor

 

[Apologes]

Watching the theists around me, it seems like theism often leads to more emotional unrest than atheism.

I remember when my Dad died: I wad able to simply be angry at the cancer that killed him. Yes, I felt grief and powerlessness, but it seemed to me that many of the theists around me felt the same anger, grief and powerlessness that I did, but layered on top of that was guilt (at denying their faith by finding fault with God's plan) and even more powerlessness (since to them, the cancer was the unthwartable will of an all-powerful god, not just a difficult disease that we can work to overcome).

That's not how I see it. My worldview offers the hope that the person who died is in a better place and not just in a slightly better place but the best place they could possibly be. Regardless of how sad, painful and tragic a person's life and death may be, they do not end in tragedy but go into the hands of a loving God in whom they find their true purpose and joy for all eternity. Far from being a cause of anxiety, whatever struggles the person who died and those who now weep went and go through will have some meaning. Atheism, on the other hand, offers nothing. Whatever pain and suffering strikes us, it has no meaning and no purpose. It is irrelevant to the universe which will itself die and leave nothing but darkness for all eternity.

Death is sad on theism, make no mistake, but atheism could never hope to offer such comfort and hope. On atheism, death isn't merely sad, it's downright depressing.