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

[Mock Turtle]

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

Hardly - I appreciate life as much as most - couldn't do without it to be honest - but life would go on as normal if humans vanished from the face of the Earth. What does that say about any intelligent agency?

There Will Come Soft Rains by Sara Teasdale

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum-trees in tremulous light;

Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

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

Now, now - simplistic connotes some kind of negative judgment, and we (haha) all know the ToE is the best explanation so far. Gravity is quite simple too. Like to query this - tall building handy?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

You mean...you can't get them to change their minds and see things your way?

Well, that's too bad, m'friend. It happens, and I imagine that they are thinking very much the same about you.

I don't need that people "see things my way" - I'm hoping that they can accept the holes I see in their arguments/evidence enough to understand why there is no possible way I would accept them - enough to understand why there are any number of people who wouldn't accept them. You can keep believing whatever it is that you want... just don't go around pretending it is amazing.

And sure, maybe they feel the same about me... but they also can't deny me my thoughts/beliefs/etc. They can't force what I accept or don't accept, just as I can't force them - nor would I want to. But there are many times I bring up the tough talking points, and my theistic debate-partner starts getting agitated, and starts changing the subject, or just denying on the basis of "because", or something else equally as uninspiring. This is the point at which I know I have them on the ropes... they don't know the answers to my questions - they may not even know if their faith holds up to the holes I am blowing into it. And this is where it gets frustrating. Points start being ignored, answers become more and more "mystical" to try and make up for the fact that they have nothing grounded in reality to turn to, etc. I, personally, will talk any point, and let you simply know if I don't feel knowledgeable to provide a sufficient response, etc. But you'd better bet I wouldn't start running around like a chicken with my head cut off.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

From my perspective, it's more like you're trying to explain what the colour blue looks like when you haven't even established that you can see any better than the rest of us "blind" people (and you sure seem to be bumping into the furniture as if you can't see any better than we can).

Edit: is this "blue" thing something that exists externally, or is it only something you've imagined? You seem sincere, but are you just describing a blob in your vision that you've decided is true?

Edit 2: we also have the person next to you who also claims to be able to see and is describing the experience of seeing that the thing you're calling blue is actually orange. Even without seeing it for myself, I can know you both can't be right, but you both could be wrong.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hmm

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

The problem is, the cook shows you the food but the person questions the cook's authenticity without discussing what defines his food in the manner the cook knows it not the person eating it.

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

It is. Culture and language has a profound affect and defines religion, its evidence, and behavior of tbe people who believe in that faith. That is the nature of religion. Finding evidence based on an atheist criteria is like saying the cook has the wrong ingredients for food thaf person did not prepare nor know about to make that conclusion.

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

The point of going deeper is to understand the nature, culture, and belief of the believer and finding gods existence in how he discribes it not how you want him to.

Hopefully, the believer would do likewise.

Edit.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hardly - I appreciate life as much as most - couldn't do without it to be honest - but life would go on as normal if humans vanished from the face of the Earth. What does that say about any intelligent agency?

There Will Come Soft Rains by Sara Teasdale

There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

And frogs in the pools singing at night,
And wild plum-trees in tremulous light;

Robins will wear their feathery fire
Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

And not one will know of the war, not one
Will care at last when it is done.

Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree
If mankind perished utterly;

And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn,
Would scarcely know that we were gone.

I think you make a good point for ID, we are the only species in millions (billions?)-- the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, appreciate it's own beauty- including other life. Coincidence? perhaps, but I think there are less improbable explanations...

Now, now - simplistic connotes some kind of negative judgment, and we (haha) all know the ToE is the best explanation so far. Gravity is quite simple too. Like to query this - tall building handy?

belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, so apparently 'we' generally think it's a bunch of cobblers!

Gravity is simple? it certainly was considered so before quantum mechanics and sub atomic physics....back in the days ToE was invented along the same reductionist lines

Physical apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples still fall not far from their trees.... But trying to extrapolate both design features into design mechanisms presents the same paradoxical fallacy (or fallacious paradox? )

either way - it don't work!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hm..

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

Who knows? I mean, Id really have to rack my brain (and heart) to find what others define as god because I have no basis in comparison nor source to start even if I wanted.

Its all personal beliefs; nothing wrong with that.

He is righteous and just

How so?

Can you explain the creator apart from sacred text?

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.

But you are blinded too. We all find the definition of blue many ways. I dont mind if others find different definitions. I need no evidence and I need not refute people who dont believe as I do.

We are all blind. No one is special.

I was drawn to Buddhism at one point until I read ‘the easiest way to enlightenment is love’. Why have any other route? Why a

Did you practice at a temple? Did you take formal vows?

Its only easy because as a heart-person you probably didnt go deeper into understanding the mind as a practice not as a religion that you can change from. Everything comes from the mind. Its only easy when you understood your mind fully Without the heart at its source.

Did you understand your mind fully or went to something easier like the heart that doesnt need to be studied and practiced in order to understand it?

To me, heart-faiths are the easy way out. If you dont understand your mind, faith is all you have. It goes beyond bowing to buddha statues, meditation, etc.

Accesstoinsight.com is a good site with thousand upon thousands of sacred scripture more so than any abrahamic text.

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

You believe..yes..Im speaking of universal fact rather tha subjective belief.

Im not questioning the validity of your belief just the logic in which you present your belief as facts. If thats how you see god, facts arent depended on faith; youd need to try another approach.


Edited.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

Apparently, for at least most of the people I've personally witnessed, this comfort doesn't actually work.

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.

Why would going to "the best place you could possibly be" be sad at all?

I've occasionally met theists who were happy for the deceased at a funeral and they came across as absolutely crazy, but I do recognize that they were acting consistently with what their fellow believers say they believe.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think you make a good point for ID, we are the only species in millions (billions?)-- the only means we know of by which the universe can contemplate it's own existence, appreciate it's own beauty- including other life. Coincidence? perhaps, but I think there are less improbable explanations...

Very much a coincidence - given the closeness we are to our primate cousins - approximately 98% of the same DNA and I doubt they do much contemplating of gods or God. We can thank the development of our brains for that and our language and our hands and .....

belief in Darwinism is about 19% in the US according to Gallup, so apparently 'we' generally think it's a bunch of cobblers!

The USA is very much on their own when compared with most other similar reasonably advanced countries - and no doubt we can thank the popularity of Christianity in the USA for this. Not worth claiming this backwardness as a benefit. Exactly how long ago did the USA lose racial segregation?

Gravity is simple? it certainly was considered so before quantum mechanics and sub atomic physics....back in the days ToE was invented along the same reductionist lines

Physical apples still fall from trees, and genetic apples still fall not far from their trees.... But trying to extrapolate both design features into design mechanisms presents the same paradoxical fallacy (or fallacious paradox? )

either way - it don't work!

Well, believe it or not, evolution just goes on as normal - I believe the latest example of evolution in action is the Bajau people of South-East Asia, who apparently have adapted due to their free-diving prowess:

Mystery of sea nomads' amazing ability to freedive is solved

The Bajau people are able to dive tens of metres underwater with no conventional diving aids. Instead they rely on weights, handmade wooden goggles – and a single breath of air. But while the Bajau people’s talents have long been known, it was unclear whether the skill was the result of practice, as in the case of the excellent underwater vision of Thai “sea nomad” children, or the result of adaptations which have their roots in the Bajau people’s DNA. Now experts say they have the answer: over time the Bajau people have undergone natural selection, resulting in certain versions of genes becoming widespread – many of which are linked to biological changes, including having a larger spleen, that could help the Bajau to hold their breath underwater for many minutes at a time.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Very much a coincidence - given the closeness we are to our primate cousins - approximately 98% of the same DNA and I doubt they do much contemplating of gods or God. We can thank the development of our brains for that and our language and our hands and .....



The USA is very much on their own when compared with most other similar reasonably advanced countries - and no doubt we can thank the popularity of Christianity in the USA for this. Not worth claiming this backwardness as a benefit. Exactly how long ago did the USA lose racial segregation?

How long since you got rid of Monarchies?

And the USA is also very much on it's own in leading the world in practically every scientific field you can think of for over a century

another 'coincidence?' like human's accidentally acquiring language through random errors in DNA?

Well, believe it or not, evolution just goes on as normal - I believe the latest example of evolution in action is the Bajau people of South-East Asia, who apparently have adapted due to their free-diving prowess:

Mystery of sea nomads' amazing ability to freedive is solved

The Bajau people are able to dive tens of metres underwater with no conventional diving aids. Instead they rely on weights, handmade wooden goggles – and a single breath of air. But while the Bajau people’s talents have long been known, it was unclear whether the skill was the result of practice, as in the case of the excellent underwater vision of Thai “sea nomad” children, or the result of adaptations which have their roots in the Bajau people’s DNA. Now experts say they have the answer: over time the Bajau people have undergone natural selection, resulting in certain versions of genes becoming widespread – many of which are linked to biological changes, including having a larger spleen, that could help the Bajau to hold their breath underwater for many minutes at a time.

any gills yet? limited adaptation of pre-existing features goes on as normal, that's all that has ever been observed/ verified scientifically,.

And It's difficult to think of any reasonably sophisticated design that does not demonstrate some adaptability, it's inherent to any good design

 

[Quintessence]

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.

I'm sorry, but since when was mythological literalism a requirement for theism? That's nonsense. Not going to lie, I kind of stopped reading after this part here.

 

[Mock Turtle]

How long since you got rid of Monarchies?

We only keep our monarchy to keep you tourists happy.

And the USA is also very much on it's own in leading the world in practically every scientific field you can think of for over a century

another 'coincidence?' like human's accidentally acquiring language through random errors in DNA?

Like to quote all the various examples of scientific development from all around the world? That was a bit defensive. I mean, as the wealthiest nation in the world, why wouldn't this be the case, as in sport too, where you spend the most money, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm sorry, but since when was mythological literalism a requirement for theism? That's nonsense. Not going to lie, I kind of stopped reading after this part here.

I didn't say anything about "mythological literalism."

Theism is "belief in the existence of a god or gods."

Definition of THEISM

Whether a theist has mythologies about the god(s) he believes exists, and how he approaches those mythologies, is a separate question to whether he is or isn't a theist.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

We only keep our monarchy to keep you tourists happy.

we appreciate it!!

Like to quote all the various examples of scientific development from all around the world? That was a bit defensive. I mean, as the wealthiest nation in the world, why wouldn't this be the case, as in sport too, where you spend the most money, etc.

Point being there's obviously no contradiction between Christianity and scientific progress, the churches were the keepers of knowledge in Europe during the dark ages also

On world sport, you'd think we'd be doing better with all the money thrown at it, didn't make the world cup this year

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

Only a small percentage of theists are really willing to argue for their beliefs. There is nothing wrong with that, either.

While they are responsible for their beliefs (even when inherited wholesale) and their consequences, they have no duty to be either willing or able to present a logical case for those.

In that respect, they are entirely alike us atheists.

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.

It pays off IMO to develop a sense for the aims of the interlocutor. Some are genuinely curious or even surprised by the very existence of atheists, and deserve the proper space and respect while we clarify matters for them. There is no upside in shocking them for the joy of shocking them.

Others are moved by hubris, plain arrogance or simple hope that a direct confrontation might scare their fears away. It is generally worth pointing out the fragility of their stances in a clear, direct way and let them digest it for a while. People under those states of mind do not often pay a lot of attention to actual logic and arguments, and it is to everyone's benefit if they have the time to ponder and reflect.

So is it a waste of my time trying to debate theists?

Hardly. But it is very much worth deciding on a case by case basis who to listen to and to which extent. There are some beautiful jewels to be found amidst that quarry of sterile frustration.

 

[JustWondering]

What was it you believed formerly? And please don't say "Christianity" because what passes for Christianity today is nothing close to what Jesus taught......so tell me what you got reasoned out of.....specifically.

I was raised protestant Christian. My actual knowledge/understanding was limited to begin with, but I had the basics down. When I sat down to read through the bible and delved deeper into it, that's when my faith started slipping.

 

[JustWondering]

Atheists don't find it logical or reasonable to believe in God based on personal experience and personal inspiration or revelation from heaven. They don't find it reasonable to believe that the thinigs of the Spirit of God are only understood by the Spirit of God, and seem as foolishness to those who don't accept them. Atheists take the position that unless God can be proven through the scientific method in the same way that gravity or the speed of sound is proven, they will not believe. They find it illogical and unreasonable for one to believe in God in any other way. I'd like to think that as a mathematician, I'm as logical as the next guy. I think I can hold my own in a logical debate and understand when arguments are valid and when they are sound. But at the end of the day, it always seems to boil down to the fact that I'm convinced that God has revealed himselt to me through experience and the voice of the Spirit.

God intends us to find him thorough faith and reason, but not reason alone IMO. If it were possible to prove God's existence and more specifically to prove the existence of the Christian God through reason, then every intelligent human being would have to conclude that the Chistian God is real. Yet even that proof would not be sufficient for one to love and to follow God. IMO there is only one way to come to know that God lives, that there is a Savior, to love God, and to devote one's life to God, and that is through conversion of the Holy Spirit. There is no other way. That is how God planned it. Reason alone can't get you there. While I said that reason alone can't get you there, I also find my argument to be reasonable and I consider my beliefs, my convictions, and my actions to be perfectly reasonable based on the spiritual experiences that I reasonably believe I have had.

Believing in something extraordinary before evidence is provided for it is not reasonable. If people in a foreign land who have never heard of Christianity suddenly felt the holy spirit and became Christians, that would be evidence. However, people only convert after a human tells them about Christianity. The Christian god is claimed to have interacted with humanity on multiple occasions in the past. There is no evidence of these interactions, and we are supposed to except that god will never give evidence for his existence? Why would he take such a stance when he is clearly portrayed in the bible as interacting with humanity? Why has he gone silent?

 

[Mock Turtle]

we appreciate it!!



Point being there's obviously no contradiction between Christianity and scientific progress, the churches were the keepers of knowledge in Europe during the dark ages also

On world sport, you'd think we'd be doing better with all the money thrown at it, didn't make the world cup this year

My commiserations.

How about this for being a leader or not in religiosity:

How do Americans stand out from the rest of the world?

Leaders or just stubborn?

 

[JustWondering]

Funny thing, I feel the same way about atheists... I have many logical arguments and no atheists seem to be able to respond to them... they just keep calling me names...
Whatcha wanna talk about, how God should prove He exists?

There are many things I could discuss/debate. When I was losing my faith Baha'i sounded interesting to me. However, it seemed to be trying to mash incompatible religions together. How do you reconcile this? Especially when Islam straight out calls the other Abrahamic religions as corrupted/false. Hinduism has tons of gods, while Christianity claims there is only one, capital g, God.

 

[Apologes]

Apparently, for at least most of the people I've personally witnessed, this comfort doesn't actually work.

I don't doubt that, but as far as my experience goes the results have been opposite. Either way, the reason why I didn't phrase my answer in the form of personal anecdotes was because what really matters here are the implications of one's view not a limited personal experience of interacting with people who align themselves with said view.

If a person acts like there is no hope for the deceased and are reacting in the way you described, that just shows they aren't acting in accordance with their beliefs, perhaps because they do not really understand the implications of that which they claim to believe.

Why would going to "the best place you could possibly be" be sad at all?

Going to a better place isn't sad, hence why I said it gives hope and comfort. The sad part is the fact that the said place isn't where the grieving person is. It isn't easy to fill in the void that's left in one's life after a loved one dies. When a death of a loved one occurs the first instinct that comes to people in general is to cry and be sad.

Perhaps someone could make an interesting argument that we're all atheists deep down when it comes to death, but I think that the whole fear of death and instinctively perceiving it as a sad thing is an evolutionary instinct since if we find death so repulsive we are less likely to want to die.

Guess that's something to think about.

I've occasionally met theists who were happy for the deceased at a funeral and they came across as absolutely crazy, but I do recognize that they were acting consistently with what their fellow believers say they believe.

Indeed, I can imagine someone laughing at a funeral coming off as disturbed. I think it is natural and normal to feel sad when someone dies. That's why I said death is sad, even on theism. There is a time and place to express both the sadness for losing someone close and for expressing joy about them being in a better place.

 

[PureX]

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

Probably so, but then atheism seems to lead to more myopic self-righteousness that theism does, even when it's that same myopic self-righteousness that atheist are constantly accusing theists of engendering.