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

[Quintessence]

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

This...

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.

... is a form of mythological literalism. Did you put that word "literal" in there and not really mean it? What do you mean by "literal existence" if not mythological literalism? It sounds like you're saying "if you don't believe Ra is literally a falcon-headed humanoid physically walking around on planet earth who and can be caught on camera, you are not a theist."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This...



... is a form of mythological literalism. Did you put that word "literal" in there and not really mean it?

I never said "mythological." I wasn't talking about mythology at all at that point.

What do you mean by "literal existence" if not mythological literalism? It sounds like you're saying "if you don't believe Ra is literally a falcon-headed humanoid physically walking around on planet earth who and can be caught on camera, you are not a theist."

I said nothing of the sort.

If you're going to keep putting words in my mouth, then you can just keep on arguing against whatever it is you've decided you think I mean and I'll go do something else.

I'm drawing a distinction between beliefs about the real world and mythology. We can believe that Abraham Lincoln was a real person and that Abraham Lincoln - Vampire Hunter is a meaningful story without believing that Abraham Lincoln actually hunted vampires.

To be a theist, a person has to believe in the existence of some sort of God. If they want to appreciate a "falcon-headed humanoid" as a non-literal, mythological representation of the god they believe in, that's their business... and irrelevant to the point that I'm making: a theist is someone who believes that a god or gods exist. You don't need to believe that your Ra literally has the head of a falcon to believe that some deity that you identify as Ra literally exists.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm finding you hard to follow @9-10ths_Penguin because you seem to be using "exists" and "literally exists" interchangeably. I do not view those as interchangeable terms. "Literally exists" implies mythological literalism, while "exists" does not. It probably doesn't help that I doubt our views about mythology in general have much alignment. Regardless, miscommunication mystery solved, and I'm done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm finding you hard to follow @9-10ths_Penguin because you seem to be using "exists" and "literally exists" interchangeably.

Yes. When we're talking about theism, we're talking about the belief that a god or god literally exists. Atheists can believe in "god as a concept" or "god as a metaphor." The thing that makes a person a theist is belief in the literal existence of at least one god.

I do not view those as interchangeable terms. "Literally exists" implies mythological literalism, while "exists" does not.

Neither "exists" nor "literally exists" address mythology at all.

Edit: as I tried to get at with my Abraham Lincoln example, we can have non-literalist mythology about things that literally exist.

I can recognize that coyotes literally exist without accepting Native American stories about the character of coyote as literally true.

It probably doesn't help that I doubt our views about mythology in general have much alignment. Regardless, miscommunication mystery solved, and I'm done.

At this point, I have no idea what your views on mythology are. You seem to have a tendency to use terms that have established meanings in your own way and expect people to just know what you mean. If you say our views are different, so be it; I'm not in a position to know.

 

[Willamena]

*raises hand*

Yes. When we're talking about theism, we're talking about the belief that a god or god literally exists. Atheists can believe in "god as a concept" or "god as a metaphor." The thing that makes a person a theist is belief in the literal existence of at least one god.

I think you mean "actual," rather than "literal."

Neither "exists" nor "literally exists" address mythology at all.

"Ra" addresses mythology.

But carry on.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*raises hand*


I think you mean "actual," rather than "literal."

Maybe you and @Quintessence should start a club for people who think they know what I mean better than I do.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Far be it from me to do so.

Believe and think as you will. Just don't figure that your logic trumps anybody else's beliefs in THEIR mind, and then get PO'd because they don't.

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.

No?

That's nice. I wonder, though, why you got so exercised about a response I made to someone else, whose POV was NOT 'live and let live,' so much?

As for me, I have no problem talking about my beliefs with people who don't agree with them. Makes me think and examine those beliefs.

I DO, however, have a problem with those who start arguing with some strawman version of my beliefs and expecting me to defend positions I don't actually hold.

 

[Deeje]

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.

There is an example in the Bible where an Ethiopian convert to Judaism was riding along in a chariot, reading aloud a prophesy in Isaiah. A Christian evangelizer, Phillip was directed to approach him and ask a question....
“Do you actually know what you are reading?”...to which the man replied.....“Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him." (Acts 8:26-39)

For the same reason that Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, we need someone to explain the scriptures to us.
Given that the Jews were already well versed in their scriptures, why did they need to be guided about what to believe? Their leaders had corrupted God's word by adding so many traditions and meaningless rituals to what God had commanded, that the average person found them impossible to keep, and just gave up trying....these became "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", (Matthew 15:24) that Jesus was sent to. He was not sent to the Pharisees because these wicked men had no interest in the truth, only in their position and entitlements. Jesus knew that they were incorrigible. (Matthew 23:37-39)

Jesus said of those men...
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves." (Matthew 23:13-36)

The very same processes that corrupted Judaism have also corrupted Christendom. It was foretold that this apostasy would occur by Jesus and his apostles. (Matthew 13:24-30; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1)

If you learned your "Christianity" from Christendom's church system, then you did not learn the teachings of Christ, just as the first century Jews were not learning about God's teachings through his prophets from their spiritual guides. Jesus called them "blind guides" leading others into the same pit that they would fall into. (Matthew 15:12-14)

I am also an escapee from that system.

True Christians are still in the world, but like Jesus' illustration of the "wheat and the weeds", the "field" is overgrown with "weeds"...imitation Christians who are such in name only. Only a relative "few" would be found on the road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14)

There is a certain criteria by which the real Christians could be identified....I can provide it if you like....straight from the Bible....?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

No? That's nice. I wonder, though, why you got so exercised about a response I made to someone else, whose POV was NOT 'live and let live,' so much?

The "chicken with head cut off" remark was in reference to people who are under the gun, and whose panic starts to show in their posts/replies as they step further and further into apparent anxiety. Do you equate this with "[getting] exercised?"

As for me, I have no problem talking about my beliefs with people who don't agree with them. Makes me think and examine those beliefs.

This is me as well.

I DO, however, have a problem with those who start arguing with some strawman version of my beliefs and expecting me to defend positions I don't actually hold.

I probably do stray into assumptions at times regarding theistic beliefs I have found to be the most prevalent. I tend to stick to those, because I don't care to even know the finer points, which tend not to be of interest to me because they are the most volatile between believers and therefore usually not a worthwhile target of debate. Meaning those things that one particular Christian may hold in belief and another either doesn't, doesn't even know about it, or doesn't care. So I am likely guilty, at times, of making strawman arguments after a fashion. But that is usually only because I don't know the very particulars of a specific persons beliefs going into a conversation, and so the major talking points tend to be the only thing I can make a guess on. And even then - I usually only reply to things I find interesting or particularly debate worthy in the first place - so this doesn't even happen that often because I am responding to something I already DO know about the person. I easily drop a subject if it isn't on the person's radar however. And I guess that's one thing that makes it odd/tough - navigating all the various beliefs out there within the SAME religion.

 

[Libski]

There is an example in the Bible where an Ethiopian convert to Judaism was riding along in a chariot, reading aloud a prophesy in Isaiah. A Christian evangelizer, Phillip was directed to approach him and ask a question....
“Do you actually know what you are reading?”...to which the man replied.....“Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him." (Acts 8:26-39)

For the same reason that Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, we need someone to explain the scriptures to us.
Given that the Jews were already well versed in their scriptures, why did they need to be guided about what to believe? Their leaders had corrupted God's word by adding so many traditions and meaningless rituals to what God had commanded, that the average person found them impossible to keep, and just gave up trying....these became "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", (Matthew 15:24) that Jesus was sent to. He was not sent to the Pharisees because these wicked men had no interest in the truth, only in their position and entitlements. Jesus knew that they were incorrigible. (Matthew 23:37-39)

Jesus said of those men...
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves." (Matthew 23:13-36)

The very same processes that corrupted Judaism have also corrupted Christendom. It was foretold that this apostasy would occur by Jesus and his apostles. (Matthew 13:24-30; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1)

If you learned your "Christianity" from Christendom's church system, then you did not learn the teachings of Christ, just as the first century Jews were not learning about God's teachings through his prophets from their spiritual guides. Jesus called them "blind guides" leading others into the same pit that they would fall into. (Matthew 15:12-14)

I am also an escapee from that system.

True Christians are still in the world, but like Jesus' illustration of the "wheat and the weeds", the "field" is overgrown with "weeds"...imitation Christians who are such in name only. Only a relative "few" would be found on the road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14)

There is a certain criteria by which the real Christians could be identified....I can provide it if you like....straight from the Bible....?

Fruit?

 

[Deeje]

Fruit?

Meaning? Sorry I am not good at cryptic comments. They are prone to misinterpretation.

So that I do not misunderstand you, please ask the question in a coherent sentence....

 

[Libski]

Meaning? Sorry I am not good at cryptic comments. They are prone to misinterpretation.

So that I do not misunderstand you, please ask the question in a coherent sentence....

My apologies.

You said, ‘There is a certain criteria by which the real Christians could be identified.’

I asked if it was fruit - as in, bearing fruit, making disciples?

 

[Deeje]

My apologies.

You said, ‘There is a certain criteria by which the real Christians could be identified.’

I asked if it was fruit - as in, bearing fruit, making disciples?

Ah, thank you. That is just one of the criteria, yes. There are many more.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

I totally believe the Scriptures (of the Bible) provide us reliable answers to questions that are important to our life.

At least, I've gotten my questions answered....by Jehovah's Witnesses.



Yes, due to Romans 5:12, etc..... I have found no other (Biblical) Scriptures that plainly refute this understanding.

Interesting. I myself always believe that Adam & Eve was just a fable god used to tell us that its natural for men to sin and that we didn't actually inherit Adam's sin, but his desire to.

 

[JustWondering]

There is an example in the Bible where an Ethiopian convert to Judaism was riding along in a chariot, reading aloud a prophesy in Isaiah. A Christian evangelizer, Phillip was directed to approach him and ask a question....
“Do you actually know what you are reading?”...to which the man replied.....“Really, how could I ever do so unless someone guided me?” So he urged Philip to get on and sit down with him." (Acts 8:26-39)

For the same reason that Jesus sent his disciples out to preach, we need someone to explain the scriptures to us.
Given that the Jews were already well versed in their scriptures, why did they need to be guided about what to believe? Their leaders had corrupted God's word by adding so many traditions and meaningless rituals to what God had commanded, that the average person found them impossible to keep, and just gave up trying....these became "the lost sheep of the house of Israel", (Matthew 15:24) that Jesus was sent to. He was not sent to the Pharisees because these wicked men had no interest in the truth, only in their position and entitlements. Jesus knew that they were incorrigible. (Matthew 23:37-39)

Jesus said of those men...
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut up the kingdom of the heavens before men; for you yourselves do not go in, neither do you permit those on their way in to go in.
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you traverse sea and dry land to make one proselyte, and when he becomes one you make him a subject for Ge·henʹna twice as much so as yourselves." (Matthew 23:13-36)

The very same processes that corrupted Judaism have also corrupted Christendom. It was foretold that this apostasy would occur by Jesus and his apostles. (Matthew 13:24-30; 1 Timothy 4:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; Acts 20:30; 2 Peter 2:1)

If you learned your "Christianity" from Christendom's church system, then you did not learn the teachings of Christ, just as the first century Jews were not learning about God's teachings through his prophets from their spiritual guides. Jesus called them "blind guides" leading others into the same pit that they would fall into. (Matthew 15:12-14)

I am also an escapee from that system.

True Christians are still in the world, but like Jesus' illustration of the "wheat and the weeds", the "field" is overgrown with "weeds"...imitation Christians who are such in name only. Only a relative "few" would be found on the road to life. (Matthew 7:13-14)

There is a certain criteria by which the real Christians could be identified....I can provide it if you like....straight from the Bible....?

There are more sects of Christianity then I could possibly count. Also, I grew up with two friends who were JW's, so I know a little bit about the JW's doctrines, some of which don't make any reasonable sense to me. Don't get me wrong, I respect JW's more than a lot of other Christian sects. What turned me off of Christianity is that the bible makes claims that simply don't mesh with reality. Doesn't really matter what sect of a religion you belong to, if the book it's based off of has stuff in it that doesn't add up, how can you maintain faith in that religion?

 

[JustWondering]

I'm yet to find an avenue of discussion or argument where logic is in any way applicable to theistic thought. It seems to be totally adverse to the concept of logic. It sucks. If you're looking for some kind of common ground with a theist on the basis of empirical, scientific evidence, you won't find it. Only junk science, misguided attempts to establish facts and empty rhetoric.

Maybe I haven't talked to the right theist yet. Maybe I should just make my own religion. Though if I did it would likely turn out to be a lot like Confucianism, which already exists. so why bother?

 

[JustWondering]

Depends on what you're trying to achieve. A change in your own views, or someone else's?

Why can't it be both?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

For starters, you would have to be able to prove that the Prophet /Messenger of God that established the religion was just some guy... can you provide any evidence of that?

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

I understand that, but I find the level of evidence for the Baha’i Faith more than adequate.

 

[Trailblazer]

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.

What is the evidence against God?
I can support my arguments for God with evidence but I predict you will not “like” my evidence.