Pointless Debate

[Unveiled Artist]

The question is asked again in 180. However, it is explained to where it should make more sense that I am not asking about an atheists relationship with reality. I dont see how you got that. Maybe the reasons are personal as to "why" people who Know God does not exist would talk about God. Reasons aside, doez having the conversation in and of itself logical.

I.e. I know God (well say external) does not exist. I talk about him because of curiousity, learning new perspectives, and wonder. These reasons are perfecfly logical (they make sense). However, I know it does not make sense in and of itself to have the conversation. It is illogical because I am imagining something into existence and Im seriously making it exist outside of analogies and concepts. Why would I do this, if not for the reasons stated, I would not. The action is illogical not the reasons. My relationship with reality is not part of the question.

I ask people who knows god does not exist the same question i just answered myself. The result of 9 pages of misinterpretation or giving reasons but missing the point. Post and replies 114 explains it best. Post 180 is a recap.

The whole inquiry is about our relationship with reality. On the surface level that's an intellectual question, on a deeper level it's a personal one. Theists tend towards the personal, whereas atheists lean towards the intellectual, perhaps a key difference between the two.

To gain some insight in to the nature of the question, we can examine the phrase "our relationship with reality". This phrase assumes two different things "us" and "reality", and then some relationship between the two. Even just the word "relationship" assumes at least two different things.

As example, let's say you have a roommate. We can guess this roommate probably has welcome and unwelcome qualities, as we all do. What is your relationship with this roommate, the entirety of them, including everything you see as being good and everything you see being as bad? How you answer this question will probably determine how well your time with this roommate goes.

Reality is our ever present roommate. It contains things we like, and things we don't like. Unlike our human roommate reality is huge, powerful, and mysterious beyond our ability to imagine. It controls virtually everything that matters in our lives, leaving us to manage only the smallest of details. It can give us the most wonderful experiences, and then in the next moment give us pancreatic cancer or some other horror. It's close to impossible to predict what reality will dish out to us on any given day.

Intellectualism is a way to keep such existential facts of our existence at arm's length, at a safe distance. While there's nothing wrong with this, it's also a pretty limited method for approaching what in the end is a deeply personal question.

What is our relationship with a power of this scale, whether we call it reality or god or something else?

Because theists (the better ones anyway) grasp that this is at heart a deeply personal question, they approach the question in a personal manner.

Generally speaking, they have replaced the cold abstract phrase of "reality" with a living intelligent entity one can relate to personally the way humans are used to relating.

And because such power, whatever one might call it, dwarfs the human scale, they have correctly seen that the rational response is to love, worship and surrender to such overwhelming power, whatever one might call it.

Imho, it doesn't really matter whether we call it reality, nature, god, universe or some other word, because for issues of this unimaginably enormous scale, none of us have a clue what we're talking about. So, the rational thing is to choose any word we like, and then get on to the real business of the inquiry.

Whatever you call it, what is your relationship with it?

You might win a free trip to Hawaii tomorrow.

Or you might be diagnosed with bone cancer.

What is your relationship with that?

 

[Typist]

I would vote it's not logical to keep talking about god if one doesn't believe in it.

Let's say I'm repairing my car. I pick up a tool out of my toolbox, try it, and it doesn't work. Maybe I try it a few more times to be sure.

The logical next step would be to put that tool back in the toolbox, and pick up another tool. The logical thing would be to stop yelling at the first tool, accept that it's not working for me, and get on with the job by some other method.

Reason is a perfectly good tool for this inquiry. The problem for many atheists is that they like to say it, but not actually do it. They aren't fully loyal to their own chosen methodology. As example, they will challenge theism, but then they stop, and never get around to challenging atheism too.

Instead of continuing to reason, continuing to challenge, they content themselves with replacing one belief system with another, which they then often build a self flattering identity out of.

That's not reason. That's ideology.

Reason's a perfectly good tool. If we use it. And stick with it.

 

[Jumi]

Is it logical to talk about atheists if one is not atheist?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Posts and replies on 114 helps. Post 180 is a recap. 182 by typist seem to understand. Disciple, Katspur, and Chinu seem to understand. Dont understand why others dont.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Is it logical to talk about atheists if one is not atheist?

Is it logical for an (sorry, edit) Non atheist to talk as if he is?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Very Good Question

Thank you. I thought it was just me.

 

[Jumi]

Is it logical for an (sorry, edit) Non atheist to talk as if he is?

It wouldn't be logical. I was replying to Typist by the way, not the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It wouldn't be logical. I was replying to Typist by the way, not the OP.

No prob.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I mean, why do Christians debate Hindus when they know Shiva doesn't exist?
Why do Muslims debate Jews who don't give validity to Mohammed?

Because they are not debating their own belief system, but others. Its easier to debate someone elses truth but when presented with a debate about their own, all of the sudden it becomes too personal.

Ask a theist to debate why God does not exist, theyd look at you funny. Ask an atheist to debate that God does exist athiest/agnostics may be game for it. Strong atheist may find it silly AND they do it anyways.

I find it silly too and I still do it. My OP is asking if others find it silly to even though they do so for many non silly reasons.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

One more time. Think this is a bit better:

Ask a theist to debate why God does not exist, theyd look at you funny. Ask an atheist to debate that God does exist, an athiest/agnostics may be game for it. Strong atheists may find it silly AND they do it anyways.

I find it silly too AND I still do it. My OP is asking if others find it silly to do the same even though they do so for many logical reasons.

 

[leibowde84]

Isnt it illogical for an athiest (one who knows God does not exist defin. for this thread) to debate God's existence?

i.e. If I had an invisible box (whats in the box!! Sorry, Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt movie flash back) and millions of people just believed it exist and I know it does not....why would I say "it 'could' exist" literally just because believers made a claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

Maybe it could be because in some atheist definitions, there is only a disbelief in God which, that, doesnt require that God be non-existent. It leaves room for debate because they are hanging on possibilities, theory, philosophy.

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

I think your definition is a logical fallacy. How can someone "know" that God doesn't exist? At the very best, one can merely have a strong belief that God does not exist, right?

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

Read posts and replies to 114.

If you want to discuss it, we can. The question has been rephrased within those 9 pages. It has been taken as a personal attack to atheisf for some. It was heavily misinterpreted and the points were only understood by Disciple, katscpar, and luis. You can check those posts too (luizs and I have longer discussing this)
--
Does it make sense that someone who Knows God exist to have a serious conversation, Ill say with another person of same views, as if God does?

If it makes sense (not the reasons for the coversation but the actual conversation itself), "how"?

If not, why not?
---
Posters have given me countless "reasons why" it is logical for a person who knows God doez not exist would seriously talk as of he exists. They ranged from political (it affects the nation; we need to educate thiests to reduce harm they are doing to society), personal (it affects us atheist; we cant help but talk about it), for mutual understanding (taking about God in a language the theist understand), curiosity, and fun.

All of these reasons are logical, but what about the action itself?

One person said it aould be odd if two atheist as described in my OP would talk.about God as if He exists.

Regardless of who the atheist talks to, how is it logical?

Similar to how is logical for an atheist to pray to God.

Another i.e. Many theist would not talk seriously as if God does not exist. They say it doesnt make sense ans they explain how. I ask the same of those who Know God Does Not exist. Question is switched.
--

If this question is silly, please answer respectfully or dont reply. Ive gone circles of miscommunicaton over offending atheist and definitions of the word itself.

I think the main point should be how does anyone know god exists, or does not exists? GIVEN that one accepts or rejects the hypothesis, one must ask what is meant by 'logical?' If we can get around that term, I, an atheist, find it 'useful,' 'for argument sake,' to discuss the possibility in terms of predictive power. The form of argument "IFF....Then..." is the basis of scientific experimentation as well as much less rigorous forms of observation. Falsification is based on assuming a position and then searching for facts that undermine that position.

Only by assuming god exists, and making that position as strong as possible, can we find the fallacies in the position!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think your definition is a logical fallacy. How can someone "know" that God doesn't exist? At the very best, one can merely have a strong belief that God does not exist, right?

The thing is, just because a billion people made a claim God exists doesnt mean he does. God only exists as a cultural concept that people have personalized into existence for themselves (hence the need for faith/hope) to give them purpose.

How could one say we dont know if God exist when, for sake of debate, he does not. Thats like saying we cant proove either way nothing exists.

Its like finding a reason to place a number two in place of variable X. When X has no equation attached, its just a claim, a letter, that has no attachment until someone puts one there.

Saying "two may be variable X" we cant proove it ignores the fact that it is a variable and nothing more. Leave it be.

Make sense?

 

[jonathan180iq]

... Are you taking the position that god does not exist (strong atheism) and then wondering why we bother debating with people about a thing that is essentially nothing. Or are you questioning why people who use the assertion more loosely (weak atheists) even bother giving notion to the possibility of god existing, thus making their atheism not atheism?

 

[viole]

If God does not exist and the athiest knows this (hence why he's an athiest) why debate "nothing"?

Well, mainly because many people believe in a deity that might convince them to do things that affect everybody's life. Whether this is good or bad depends on the particular flavor of God/gods instead of being the consequence of a rational process. Some Gods say you should forgive, some say you should not, some say gays are bad, some not, some gods like capital punishment, others less so, some gods say we are all equal others say humans should be divided in castes, etc etc.

The moment the pious say something like sky daddy being the objective source of morality, we should have alarms bells playing all over the place, for God's morality tend to correspond almost exactly with the morality of the pious.

So, for instance, if I lived in a country where assisted suicide is forbidden, because some imaginary deity said so, then it is my duty to cure believers (or try to) from their defective epistemology.

Everybody can make a moral statement about basically anything (e.g. against assisted suicide, abortion, divorce, gay marriage, castes, ... whatever), without delegating them to an almighty figments of their imagination. If not, then they should be ready to be called out. They enjoyed immunity from challenge and ridicule for far too long.

And, last but not least, I like to debate because it is sometimes entertaining to make fun of religious tenets, in general

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The former except for, not why bother, but is it, in itself logical for a strong atheist to do so or does that depend on his reasons not the actual conversation?

... Are you taking the position that god does not exist (strong atheism) and then wondering why we bother debating with people about a thing that is essentially nothing. Or are you questioning why people who use the assertion more loosely (weak atheists) even bother giving notion to the possibility of god existing, thus making their atheism not atheism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thats logical. I agree. What about the action itself? Is that logical in itself or does it depend on the reasons youve and other posters provided to make it logical or not?

Well, mainly because many people believe in a deity that might convince them to do things that affect everybody's life. Whether this is good or bad depends on the particular flavor of God/gods instead of being the consequence of a rational process. Some Gods say you should forgive, some say you should not, some say gays are bad, some not, some gods like capital punishment, others less so, some gods say we are all equal others say humans should be divided in castes, etc etc.

The moment the pious say something like sky daddy being the objective source of morality, we should have alarms bells playing all over the place, for God's morality tend to correspond almost exactly with the morality of the pious.

So, for instance, if I lived in a country where assisted suicide is forbidden, because some imaginary deity said so, then it is my duty to cure believers (or try to) from their defective epistemology.

Everybody can make a moral statement about basically anything (e.g. against assisted suicide, abortion, divorce, gay marriage, castes, ... whatever), without delegating them to an almighty figments of their imagination. If not, then they should be ready to be called out. They enjoyed immunity from challenge and ridicule for far too long.

And, last but not least, I like to debate because it is sometimes entertaining to make fun of religious tenets, in general

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Thats logical. I agree. What about the action itself? Is that logical in itself or does it depend on the reasons youve and other posters provided to make it logical or not?

What action?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What action?

Ciao

- viole

Oh. The actual talking about a non existant entity in itself.

 

[viole]

Oh. The actual talking about a non existant entity in itself.

Well, what is the problem? People debate since centuries about the existence, or lack thereof, of things like Loch Ness or the effectivity of homeopathy, and, more recently, global warming, effectivity of vaccination, among other things.

If someone says X exists and others thinks X does not, I do not see why a discussion about the subject should be pointless. It is pointless only when everybody agrees, and that is why we speak so much about Gods and not tooth fairies, for instance.

Ciao

- viole