Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
A lot less illogical than believing in something which you can neither see, hear, nor measure in any quantifiable form.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pointless Debate
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
A lot less illogical than believing in something which you can neither see, hear, nor measure in any quantifiable form.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Em. Good point.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Whether it's logical or not for strong atheist to debate God's existence, is depend on his reason/motive to do so.
If his reason/motive to do so is logical and has meaning in it, then it's not illogical nor meaningless.
If his reason/motive to do so is illogical and meaningless, then it can be consider as illogical and meaningless.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
That would mean the conversation itself is only illogical or logical if based on atheists' reasons? The act of conversation cannot be illogical in itself regardless the reasons, logical or not?
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Whether the conversation is logical or not, depends on the contents in the conversation.
He can have a logical reason to want to debate but illogical argument when explain his opinion, with the debate maybe he can learn something from it?
He can also both have a logical reason and logical argument, which make his conversation not illogical.
If his reason/motive for want to debate is illogical and meaningless, then it can be consider as illogical and meaningless.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I feel the content of talking about God (a title/God refering to something non existent; empty pronoun) illogical. Atheist could learn from an illogical debate. Many of us do because of curiosity, wanting to show theists the truth (and bunch other reasons in this thread).
I dont know if your post already answered this. My reason for talking about an empty pronoun is logical especially in debate and to learn something. Is the content, conversation itself I am having illogical or meaningless, yes it is. I do it anyway.
I was wondering if people saw how meaningless the conversation is even when its meaningful or logical to engage in it. (edit) Also, if they see the meaninglessness of it, would their logical reasons of talking about the content supersede the illogical content itself.
Id assume there are a few atheist that would find it illogical to talk about an empty pronoun as if it represented something that actually existed. Same as theist finding it illogical to talk as if God does not exist. Same concept.
I dont know if your post already answered this. My reason for talking about an empty pronoun is logical especially in debate and to learn something. Is the content, conversation itself I am having illogical or meaningless, yes it is. I do it anyway.
I was wondering if people saw how meaningless the conversation is even when its meaningful or logical to engage in it. (edit) Also, if they see the meaninglessness of it, would their logical reasons of talking about the content supersede the illogical content itself.
Id assume there are a few atheist that would find it illogical to talk about an empty pronoun as if it represented something that actually existed. Same as theist finding it illogical to talk as if God does not exist. Same concept.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Exactly. I was wondering if people thought the same..or where they engaging in these conversations because they will find some logic in it some day.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Like the spirit that will answer this post?
Pudding
Well-Known Member
If one think God doesn't exist and express his opinion of why he think so, why is this opinion has to be always illogical? I will say logical opinion will be always be logical; illogical opinion will be always be illogical.
Why the conversation itself is illogical or meaningless? If you think your conversation is illogical or meaningless you won't say it in the first place already, right?
If they see how meaningless their opinion is in the conversation before they say it, i bet they won't say it already, right?
If they already know their opinion is illogical but they still keep going to express it and pretend it as logical, it makes them dishonest or trolling, right?
If they think their opinion is logical, then how can they pretend or come to the conclusion that their opinion is illogical without any convincing argument made by opponent? If there is no any convincing argument made by opponent, then why should they think their logical opinion is illogical?
No, the concept and comparison is different.
When atheist talk about an empty pronoun they don't believe that this empty pronoun existed.
Why would theist want to talk as if God does not exist? Theist believe their God exist. If theist talk as if their God does not exist, then they're not really a theist, it makes them a non-believer/non-theist/atheist, right?
Believe God doesn't exist is different than believe God exist.
Compare this two different concept to make them the same, doesn't make sense.
Why would it be always illogical if an atheist talk about an empty pronoun?
Last edited:
Pudding
Well-Known Member
Do people engaging in these conversations because they wish/think they will find some logic in it some day? No.
They engaging in these conversations is because they want to engaging in it, they want to discuss/debate.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
This is how I replied to many who asked the same.
I do not believe God exist. I love talking about God. Why? Out of of curiousity, interest, seeing different opinions. These reasons are logical; nothing wrong with this. I believe the conversation in and of itself a part from my loical reasons for having it is illogical. I am talking, hypotheticaly, as if a God exist to understand more. If I knew everythting the theist would say in regards to the topic, Im just talking to please myself for reasons above...is it logical, no. Some atheist are more agnostic. They admit that they are still struggling to know if God exist. A person who knows God would not entertain the idea nothing exist even though they talk about him in concept, idea, but NOT actuality. (Also, no, we are not trolling)
A theist believes God exists . An atheist does not. A theist can entertain the idea that god does not exist. Will many do this, probably AND they feel the conversation is pointless. Its not based on what they define as reality. So they believe their reasons do not supersede the fact god does exist and it is disrespectful to talk as if he does not.
I switched and ask atheist the same. Theist just roll their eyes and say, yeah its illogical...I dont see the point of talking about someone who doesnt exist. I get their answers. This thread popped so fast that only a few non theist acfually got the thread point and i thinn one theist did. Everyone else is telling me its logical to talk about God...sure out of many reasons.
Then I say, do these reasons make the conversation logical or can the conversation be logical or not without reasons justifying it personally?
If I diding have good reasons or justifications, why would I talk about nothing,to "anyone" atheist included?
It also dawned on me that I am talking about empty pronouns. I have no particular god I would replace that pronoun with. Im talking about nothing as if there is something.
Like discussing to a believer that there is a cup in hand when there is not. Theres only but so many ways I can play around a cup actually existing, which these ways are logical, until I came to an conclusion why am I talking about nothing. I have good reasons to justify my actions. I have no reason in itself that makes my justification any more logical than an author talking as if his character exist in real life to someone who actually believes it true.
Anyway, its not the reasons behind the conversation (curiosity, wonder), its just the Act of doing it(???)
EDIT
Best examples I can give. (Please look at the point)
i.e. My friend is RC. She doesnt believe in gay marriage. She equalates it with murder. (She told me this point blank) If I got married, her reasons for coming "support her friend" would be logical. However, because the Act of comming to the wedding is illogical (in this case also a sin), she would not entertain the idea of going. She wont even talk about it.
The Act of talking about nothing is only logical when the atheist has some concept about what he is talking about (puting Something behind that pronoun).
Without a concept, or even entertaining that God exists, what is the logic (not Reason) for talking about it?
i.e. Its like trying to stick a square in a circle hole. Your reasons may be logical. "I want to see if it fits. I like playing with toys" but the Act is illogical "a square cant fit in a circle". Do you still feel the need to "act as if it will" or will you give up trying. Maybe admit that its illogical but still find the desire to play with the toy as if it will fit.
I do not believe God exist. I love talking about God. Why? Out of of curiousity, interest, seeing different opinions. These reasons are logical; nothing wrong with this. I believe the conversation in and of itself a part from my loical reasons for having it is illogical. I am talking, hypotheticaly, as if a God exist to understand more. If I knew everythting the theist would say in regards to the topic, Im just talking to please myself for reasons above...is it logical, no. Some atheist are more agnostic. They admit that they are still struggling to know if God exist. A person who knows God would not entertain the idea nothing exist even though they talk about him in concept, idea, but NOT actuality. (Also, no, we are not trolling)
His opinion/reasoning isnt illogical (as described above) the conversation is. He could have the conversation with another atheist or a wall and "idea of talking as if nothing is if is something" would not make sense....
A theist believes God exists . An atheist does not. A theist can entertain the idea that god does not exist. Will many do this, probably AND they feel the conversation is pointless. Its not based on what they define as reality. So they believe their reasons do not supersede the fact god does exist and it is disrespectful to talk as if he does not.
I switched and ask atheist the same. Theist just roll their eyes and say, yeah its illogical...I dont see the point of talking about someone who doesnt exist. I get their answers. This thread popped so fast that only a few non theist acfually got the thread point and i thinn one theist did. Everyone else is telling me its logical to talk about God...sure out of many reasons.
Then I say, do these reasons make the conversation logical or can the conversation be logical or not without reasons justifying it personally?
As above, I have conversations about God. My reasons are perfectly logical. The Act of conversating as if God does, thats illogical.
If I diding have good reasons or justifications, why would I talk about nothing,to "anyone" atheist included?
Yes theist would be theist even if they talked as if God does not exist. Likewise, as atheist point out, they will be an atheist even though they talk as though God does not exist. Same thing.
Just strikes me odd. I find it disrespectful to an extent to talk to a theist as if God exists unless both parties know the atheist (if he has notnsaid si already) does not believe in God. The conversation is misleading.
It also dawned on me that I am talking about empty pronouns. I have no particular god I would replace that pronoun with. Im talking about nothing as if there is something.
Like discussing to a believer that there is a cup in hand when there is not. Theres only but so many ways I can play around a cup actually existing, which these ways are logical, until I came to an conclusion why am I talking about nothing. I have good reasons to justify my actions. I have no reason in itself that makes my justification any more logical than an author talking as if his character exist in real life to someone who actually believes it true.
Anyway, its not the reasons behind the conversation (curiosity, wonder), its just the Act of doing it(???)
EDIT
Best examples I can give. (Please look at the point)
i.e. My friend is RC. She doesnt believe in gay marriage. She equalates it with murder. (She told me this point blank) If I got married, her reasons for coming "support her friend" would be logical. However, because the Act of comming to the wedding is illogical (in this case also a sin), she would not entertain the idea of going. She wont even talk about it.
The Act of talking about nothing is only logical when the atheist has some concept about what he is talking about (puting Something behind that pronoun).
Without a concept, or even entertaining that God exists, what is the logic (not Reason) for talking about it?
i.e. Its like trying to stick a square in a circle hole. Your reasons may be logical. "I want to see if it fits. I like playing with toys" but the Act is illogical "a square cant fit in a circle". Do you still feel the need to "act as if it will" or will you give up trying. Maybe admit that its illogical but still find the desire to play with the toy as if it will fit.
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Why debate and discuss if youre not looking to understand, agree to differences, learn in order to understand. There are popular debates on this forum that I dont feel either party steps out of his shoes into his debatee. (Atheist stepnin theist shoes and theist in atheist) I dont think they can. They talk anways. Fun, some say. I learned a lot from theist. I try not to best a dead horse.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
I can't seem to understand why you think the conversation is illogical, whether it's i don't understand your point, or i see there is no point that make the conversation illogical.
Yes, agnostic say that they don't know if God exist or not.
Are the person here means theist or atheist? What is "would not entertain the idea nothing exist" means?
I can't understand this sentence.
What is "idea of talking as if nothing is if is something"?
Why a theist can entertain the idea that his god does not exist?
Why many theist will probably entertain the idea that his god does not exist and involve in that conversation regardless that they think the conversation is pointless?
Your statement doesn't make sense to me and i can't get what you're saying.
Maybe my english is too bad? I don't know.
Can you give the thread's number where it understand what your point is?
If the argument in the conversation is logical argument, plus the reason/motive is logical, then the conversation is logical.
Engage in the conversation about the topic of God, does not mean that the conversation assumes/pretend/conclude God exist.
I don't understand your meaning.
This is true, but it does not support the idea that "atheist is illogical to engage in the conversation about God".
Atheist does not believe in God and neither do they talk to theist as if God exists, atheist discuss the matter, give their opinion, why the conversation is misleading?
You talk about the empty pronouns, you don't believe the empty pronoun exist, you talk about something, and you know this something does not exist, it does not lead to the conclusion that the conversation is illogical.
No, atheist does not discussing to the believer that there is a cup in hand, rather atheist say that there is no cup in hand.
I cannot understand your point.
What is the "Act of doing it" ?
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
What if the reason is logical but the argument or conversation is not?
Oh. Page 6, those posts. I tried to find a more accurate dialogue. 113,114 and couple ones i mentioned in the post itself. (The toothefairy example on that page is somewhat close but not quite)
I was using the same question as Id pose theist. Is it logical to talk about God not existencing. They say things like, (if they are open enough), "we can talk about it. Talk about the different arguments against his existence. Philosophize. We can talk about science and pros and cons of the nature of God." but when asked if the conversation to a theist who knows God exist is logical, theyd say "of course not. God Does exist.' thats like them talking about the nature of a car they dont have.
No. Unless its Algebra where X can stand alone. In English, if you say he, she, it in a semtence it is refering to a noun or idea that preexisted in the conversation.
If I compared God conversation to mathematics, people who Knows God does not exist (knows there is no number behind thr variable X) I feel would find it illogical to use that variable.
If someone gave him a claim that number one is X and another gave a number two, talking about it in reference to the support provided is logical. If youd ask me point blank, will talking about one and two as X makes any sense since there is no cheat sheet. Id say no. Why? There is no answer. The variable means Nothing without the number or equation behind it. So they would be talking about nothing.
That, I feel is illogical. Talking about whether it should be one or two may have logical reazons behind it. Separate from that, the topic is meaningless unless one can solve for X.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
The atheist do has some concept about the "nothing" he is talking about, the concept about the "nothing" is he don't believe in the "nothing".
There is concept, the concept is he don't believe God exist.
To talking matters about God, it doesn't need one to first believe in God for the conversation to become logical.
Religion say we're sinner, religion impose morality and laws to us, we disagree with religion, that's why we expressing our opinion, wrong?
Or should we disagree with religion and remain silence, let religion impose what they think is right unto us?
Square is "disbelief in God", circle hole is "religion" ?
"disbelief in God" indeed do not fit into "religion", but it doesn't change that i do not like some "religion's moral or law", is it illogical for me to express my opinion why i don't like it?
If some religion harming me physically or mentally, is it illogical for me to express my opinion that i don't want to be harmed?
Last edited:
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I think it's more of a sensitive question rather than misunderstanding in this general thread outline. I know many theist wouldn't talk about God as if He did not exist, concept or not. I admire the respect they have for God even if it is just a concept imagined in their head.
How can you not believe in nothing? (that's kinda the point) As a follow up, how can you talk about it? (It's all concepts)
I can't remember my point. The Square isn't a disbelief in God, though. I'm just saying:
How do you talk about nothing?
The conversation of Nothing (not an analogy for God. An absence of something or someone present to occupy a space imagined or not) is logical If that logic is based on the reasons behind talking about it (curiosity, wonder, debate). If it is separate from these reasons, I see no logic or it doesn't make sense to conversation about the topic "something that doesn't exist" because in between the " - " there is no word something. It's a blank sentence. i.e. Talk about "Blank that doesn't exist."
This is what the God-conversation "sounds" to me:
"I know he exists."
"How do you know he exists?"
"Because of creation, see how he made the sea, the earth, and the clouds."
"If he did exist he would not have killed billions of people"
"He is just. No one can question his existence"
--
Then I have to ask, who is HE? If this was not a religious forum and I was not given the same repetitive assumption that He is the Christian God, this conversation makes No sense to me whatsoever. It's illogical.
If you replaced He with God, that does not make it any more logical. That just puts a face and attributes to space. It's an illusion conversation.
Many people have reasons for having these type of conversations, hence this site. It's (listing what people mentioned here), fun, amusing, no different than they believing in unicorns, why not? believers killed so many people why not advocate against them, boredom, and so on and so forth.
These are logical reasons and some, interesting. That doesn't justify the nature of the conversation itself (above) as being logical just the reasons behind it.
I can't think of how else to explain it, really. It's not meant to tell atheists that they shouldn't talk about God. It's just asking how is it logical/does it make sense (above example) to do so regardless of curiosity, political reasons, and the like.
How can you not believe in nothing? (that's kinda the point) As a follow up, how can you talk about it? (It's all concepts)
I can't remember my point. The Square isn't a disbelief in God, though. I'm just saying:
How do you talk about nothing?
The conversation of Nothing (not an analogy for God. An absence of something or someone present to occupy a space imagined or not) is logical If that logic is based on the reasons behind talking about it (curiosity, wonder, debate). If it is separate from these reasons, I see no logic or it doesn't make sense to conversation about the topic "something that doesn't exist" because in between the " - " there is no word something. It's a blank sentence. i.e. Talk about "Blank that doesn't exist."
This is what the God-conversation "sounds" to me:
"I know he exists."
"How do you know he exists?"
"Because of creation, see how he made the sea, the earth, and the clouds."
"If he did exist he would not have killed billions of people"
"He is just. No one can question his existence"
--
Then I have to ask, who is HE? If this was not a religious forum and I was not given the same repetitive assumption that He is the Christian God, this conversation makes No sense to me whatsoever. It's illogical.
If you replaced He with God, that does not make it any more logical. That just puts a face and attributes to space. It's an illusion conversation.
Many people have reasons for having these type of conversations, hence this site. It's (listing what people mentioned here), fun, amusing, no different than they believing in unicorns, why not? believers killed so many people why not advocate against them, boredom, and so on and so forth.
These are logical reasons and some, interesting. That doesn't justify the nature of the conversation itself (above) as being logical just the reasons behind it.
I can't think of how else to explain it, really. It's not meant to tell atheists that they shouldn't talk about God. It's just asking how is it logical/does it make sense (above example) to do so regardless of curiosity, political reasons, and the like.
Pudding
Well-Known Member
If reason is logical but argument/conversation is illogical, then it makes the argument/conversation illogical.
If reason and argument/conversation is both logical, then it makes the argument/conversation logical.
I go read page 6 - 8, i still can't understand your point why it's illogical for atheist to talk about God.
I cannot see your statement in supporting the idea that "atheist is illogical to engage in the conversation about God".
This rule of "In English, if you say he, she, it in a semtence it is refering to a noun or idea that preexisted in the conversation" is new to me, and i cannot agree to follow this rule.
If we discuss a fictional character in a novel, we use he/she, it in a sentence does refering to a noun or idea that preexisted in the conversation that this character is fictional. This fictional character does not preexisted in the real world to make it not fictional.
X1 represents atheist's opinion, X2 represents theist's opinion, right?
Why talking about X1 together with X2 is illogical?
Atheist want to say X1 is true, theist want to say X2 is true, why is it illogical to express their opinion?
The talking about whether it should be X1/X2 may have logical reasons, but why do you want/need to separate the logical reasons behind X1/X2 from the topic and conclude that the topic is meaningless?
X1 = atheist's opinion that God doesn't exist
X2 = theist's opinion that God exist
What is the topic and X you mean here?
Can you give an example when compare to the "atheist engage in conversation about God" ?
Why the logical reasons behind X1/X2 need to be separate from the topic? What is "unless one can solve for X" ?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
You lost me. My point is in the last post 217. Best I can explain it.
The rule of English, I explained that. I'm an English teacher and it's a simple grammar rule. In regards to the conversation, in a Novel the author has to present a noun some time in the book (unless it's poetry or something) to where when he or she uses a pronoun, it exists already (concept or not) in order for the reader to correctly associate that pronoun to what or who the author is referring to. The character does not have to appear in reality for it to be true a noun has to exist before a pronoun is used to refer to it.
Are the X1 and X2 referring to my dialogue in post 217?
Oh. I think you're talking about the Algebraic question. My point is easier said in 217 and the dialogue above. I just know simple arithmetic.
The rule of English, I explained that. I'm an English teacher and it's a simple grammar rule. In regards to the conversation, in a Novel the author has to present a noun some time in the book (unless it's poetry or something) to where when he or she uses a pronoun, it exists already (concept or not) in order for the reader to correctly associate that pronoun to what or who the author is referring to. The character does not have to appear in reality for it to be true a noun has to exist before a pronoun is used to refer to it.
Are the X1 and X2 referring to my dialogue in post 217?
X1 represents atheist's opinion, X2 represents theist's opinion, right? Why talking about X1 together with X2 is illogical? It isn't. My having a conversation with a theist is perfect logical. What we talk about depends.
Atheist want to say X1 is true, theist want to say X2 is true, why is it illogical to express their opinion? It isn't. Sharing opinions isn't illogical.
The talking about whether it should be X1/X2 may have logical reasons, but why do you want/need to separate the logical reasons behind X1/X2 from the topic and conclude that the topic is meaningless? It wasn't intended to be that way until many posters kept giving me logical reasons why they talk to theist. I'm thinking, I get that, I talk to theists daily. That's not my focus. The topic is meaningless in itself. It has nothing to do with the reasons behind engaging in it. I just find it odd.
X1 = atheist's opinion that God doesn't exist
X2 = theist's opinion that God exist
What is the topic and X you mean here?
I don't understand what you're asking
Can you give an example when compare to the "atheist engage in conversation about God" ? It's in the 217 post. Recap:
Atheist want to say X1 is true, theist want to say X2 is true, why is it illogical to express their opinion? It isn't. Sharing opinions isn't illogical.
The talking about whether it should be X1/X2 may have logical reasons, but why do you want/need to separate the logical reasons behind X1/X2 from the topic and conclude that the topic is meaningless? It wasn't intended to be that way until many posters kept giving me logical reasons why they talk to theist. I'm thinking, I get that, I talk to theists daily. That's not my focus. The topic is meaningless in itself. It has nothing to do with the reasons behind engaging in it. I just find it odd.
X1 = atheist's opinion that God doesn't exist
X2 = theist's opinion that God exist
What is the topic and X you mean here?
I don't understand what you're asking
Can you give an example when compare to the "atheist engage in conversation about God" ? It's in the 217 post. Recap:
Oh. I think you're talking about the Algebraic question. My point is easier said in 217 and the dialogue above. I just know simple arithmetic.