Pointless Debate

[Koldo]

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.

I have a hard time grapsing what you mean by 'illogical'.
It seems I am not the only one. But rather than going through this route, I will take the other one.

Why do you think it is illogical for a theist to talk as if God doesn't exist ?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a hard time grapsing what you mean by 'illogical'.
It seems I am not the only one. But rather than going through this route, I will take the other one.

Why do you think it is illogical for a theist to talk as if God doesn't exist ?

Oh. Illogical meaning it doesn't make sense. (Two and two doesn't equal five no matter how many logical reasons anyone can give to justify that answer).

--

Same reason for the other route. There are many logical reasons for theists to talk as if God does not exist. If a theist Knows God exist and talks about Him seriously as if He did not, I find that odd. Many theist I know would never talk about God as if He does not exist. It is almost as if they committed a sin just by their reactions. Since they know God exists it would be illogical (literally like two and two doesn't equal five) to say/talk as if He does not. If I believed in an external God, I'd find it disrespectful to talk about God as if He did not exist. It also depends on the theist religion too. In this case, I am talking about atheist who Know God does not exist an theist who Knows. Belief and concepts are irrelevant.

I gave the best example I could muster in 217. It's easier from an atheist view because there is no God to argue about just concepts and ideas that lead smoother conversations when talking with people who believe in deities. Since theists do believe in deities, it's hard to give an example because half of people I speak with say they Know God exists.

It's easier to talk about the logic and nature of something already in existence than trying to do the same for something that does not exist. (i.e. It's easier to talk about my stuffed teddy bear and how he speaks to me, because I can rationalize the nature of him...does he have a pull cord, voice box, and so forth. It is not easy to have the same conversation with no teddy bear in my hand but acting as if there is--and even more so talking to people who Knows teddy bear exists yet, I'm baffled that I know it does not.

If the theist claim doesn't make sense to an atheist; how would talking about that claim make it more rational than the claim itself?

Anyway, I don't know how else to go about it. It's a theology question but I don't know any theological terms to probe the inner workings of the Whys and What Ifs. It's not a "why talk about God's existence" question because the claim exist and people talk about it for many logical reasons. Cant change that. Could ask about it though.

 

[Desert Snake]

Oh. Illogical meaning it doesn't make sense. (Two and two doesn't equal five no matter how many logical reasons anyone can give to justify that answer).

--

(2) + (2) = 1,4, and 5
((2),(2), and as a unit)





joking..

 

[Pudding]

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)

How can i not believe in nothing? You mean that it's absurd for me to not believe in nothing? I cannot get your point.
As a follow up, how or why can i talk about it? I can talk about it because it's a concept, why can't i talk about it?

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?

You don't remember your point? Can you recall it?
What is the metaphor of square and circle hole you use it for?
I cannot link your metaphor to the question of "How do you talk about nothing".

"nothing" in here, represents a concept of deity that i don't believe in.
How do i talk about this "nothing" ? First, i thinking what i want to say about this "nothing", then i say it out. Is this the answer you want? Or your question is more profound? If it is please elaborate, thank you.

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."

People give you their logical reason for want to engage in conversation about God, but you want to separate their logical reason from the conversation and say that therefor the conversation is illogical. How is that make sense?

Why you need to separate their logical reason from the conversation?
If you don't separate their logical reason from the conversation, then the conversation is logical?

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 this was not a religious forums and you were not given the same repetitive assumption that He is the Christian God, then you proceed to ask who He is, and you got the answer who he is, then it make sense to you, does it not?
I cannot see why it is 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.

I replace He with God, why is it illogical? Why puts a face and attributes to space is illogical? Why it's an illussion 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.

That also doesn't justify the nature of the conversation itself (above) as being illogical if the reasons behind it is logical.

Why do you think the conversation is always illogical if the reason behind it is logical?

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.

You asked them to explain can it be logical to engage in the conversation about God without their logical reason? Is that possible?

Their logical reason doesn't quaify to make the conversation become logical?
What is the logical reason you will accept and will not separate it from the conversation?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

(2) + (2) = 1,4, and 5
((2),(2), and as a unit)
You almost got me!




joking..

 

[Pudding]

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?

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.​

Why the topic is meaningless in itself?

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.

I can't see your point.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

In other words, reasons determine whether something, such as a conversation, is logical?

I cant debate about non existence. Thats how I see debates about God, debating none existence with attributes to make it something to talk about.

How can i not believe in nothing? You mean that it's absurd for me to not believe in nothing? I cannot get your point.
As a follow up, how or why can i talk about it? I can talk about it because it's a concept, why can't i talk about it?

No. Youre taking it personal. How can Jane Doe talk about space.

Take real space. If there was nothing in "space"..no energy, planets, stars, heat, etc what is there to study? How would you study it? If you keep getting the same answer (space) when you try to find an object in space to define it, when do you give up trying? How many questions can you ask of something when space (in This point) without all I mentioned is nothing? Why keep asking the same questions of what space is when the answers will all end up the same? Curiousity? Exploration? BUT Does it make sense?

If you don't separate their logical reason from the conversation, then the conversation is logical?

If it is not, you answered my first question and the point of the thread. Can an action be illogolical itself or do our reasons define whether it is or not.

How can i not believe in nothing? You mean that it's absurd for me to not believe in nothing? I cannot get your point.
As a follow up, how or why can i talk about it? I can talk about it because it's a concept, why can't i talk about it?


You don't remember your point? Can you recall it?
What is the metaphor of square and circle hole you use it for?
I cannot link your metaphor to the question of "How do you talk about nothing".

"nothing" in here, represents a concept of deity that i don't believe in.
How do i talk about this "nothing" ? First, i thinking what i want to say about this "nothing", then i say it out. Is this the answer you want? Or your question is more profound? If it is please elaborate, thank you.


People give you their logical reason for want to engage in conversation about God, but you want to separate their logical reason from the conversation and say that therefor the conversation is illogical. How is that make sense?

Why you need to separate their logical reason from the conversation?
If you don't separate their logical reason from the conversation, then the conversation is logical?


If this was not a religious forums and you were not given the same repetitive assumption that He is the Christian God, then you proceed to ask who He is, and you got the answer who he is, then it make sense to you, does it not?
I cannot see why it is illogical.


I replace He with God, why is it illogical? Why puts a face and attributes to space is illogical? Why it's an illussion conversation?


That also doesn't justify the nature of the conversation itself (above) as being illogical if the reasons behind it is logical.

Why do you think the conversation is always illogical if the reason behind it is logical?


You asked them to explain can it be logical to engage in the conversation about God without their logical reason? Is that possible?

Their logical reason doesn't quaify to make the conversation become logical?
What is the logical reason you will accept and will not separate it from the conversation?

 

[Koldo]

If the theist claim doesn't make sense to an atheist; how would talking about that claim make it more rational than the claim itself?

It is not that the theist claim ( necessarily ) doesn't make sense to the atheist. It is more like the atheist doesn't agree with the claim being made.

Think of 'god' as being a given entity that has certain attributes. Whether it exists is irrelevant if you want to have conversations about it since it has attributes regardless of whether it exists. Its identity doesn't rely upon its own existence.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is not that the theist claim ( necessarily ) doesn't make sense to the atheist. It is more like the atheist doesn't agree with the claim being made.

Think of 'god' as being a given entity that has certain attributes. Whether it exists is irrelevant if you want to have conversations about it since it has attributes regardless of whether it exists. Its identity doesn't rely upon its own existence.

Wow. That is a different perspective. I was thinking they disagree because they didnt understand it (at least from a theist perspective). So they are debating about the attributes and claims they disagree. Some debates I get. The "Does God exist?" debate, are they looking to answer the question? If thats not the point, since Gods existence is irrelevant, what does one get out of aaking specific questions like this?

Debates like evolution, jesus is god, etc I understand. Were just talking about differences and nature of things. When it comes to the existence or non existence of something, thats what I find odd.

What you said makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

 

[Thief]

I have read a book titled....Logic.
It's not what most people think.

Given observation you move to conclusion.
If all the animals you have ever seen all had four legs....
you then chance upon a table....
you must conclude it is the skeleton of an animal dead on it's feet.

Sound weird?

And I have seen demonstration by a well known theoretical physicist....
an equation that ends with ...infinity plus infinity plus infinity.....infinitely....
and he then strikes a thoughtful pose for the camera.
Seems the discipline of that mathematics has a 'problem' with infinity.

and some people go happily on their way doing 'weird' things they believe in.

 

[Pudding]

In other words, reasons determine whether something, such as a conversation, is logical?

No. The reason for wanting to debate is logical which it makes the motive logical. The argument which given is logical which it makes the arguments logical, argument is in the conversation.

I cant debate about non existence. Thats how I see debates about God, debating none existence with attributes to make it something to talk about.

As other's previous thread has said, religion affects us.

Some religion said that their God exist therefor their morality and law is right and we must obey them, if not, then we're sinner and receive punishment.

The religion's God doesn't logically make sense to non-believer, and they see no evidence for the existence of God, therefor they express their opinion and debate that God doesn't exist. How is this debate illogical?

No. Youre taking it personal. How can Jane Doe talk about space.


Take real space. If there was nothing in "space"..no energy, planets, stars, heat, etc what is there to study? How would you study it? If you keep getting the same answer (space) when you try to find an object in space to define it, when do you give up trying? How many questions can you ask of something when space (in This point) without all I mentioned is nothing? Why keep asking the same questions of what space is when the answers will all end up the same? Curiousity? Exploration? BUT Does it make sense?

I assume the "space" you say here means "theist believe the existence of God".
Why atheist want to debate this "space" ? It's because this "space" may affects and restrict their life therefor they debate. Or they debate because they find fallacy in this "space". How is this debate illogical?

If it is not, you answered my first question and the point of the thread. Can an action be illogolical itself or do our reasons define whether it is or not.

"If it is not" ? What do you mean? I cannot see how my answer relate to your first question and the point of the thread.

We can have a logical reasons, but the action we make end up an illogical action.
We can also have a logical reasons, but the action we make end up a logical action.

Logical action will be logical; illogical action will be illogical.
Whether action/method is logical or not, is separate and independant from whether reason/motive is logical or not.
The logical reason/motive for want to debate about God, does not gurantee the argument(action) must be logical or illogical.
(this is just my opinion/theory/hypothesis, if it's flaw please explain, thank you...)

Can illogical reason output a logical action? I don't know about this.
But logical reason can output a logical action, or an illogical action.

Logical reason with logical action, this is well done.
Logical reason with illogical action, fail.
Illogical reason with illogical action, fail.

(Edit)

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I kinda think you missed my point. We all have good and logical reasons for talking about space (Ill keep with space since its simple and it doesnt have so many connotations like God).

We continue to do it daily. "Nothing wrong with that" It is odd and it is logical.

Get rid of the reasons.

The religion's God doesn't logically make sense to non-believer, and they see no evidence for the existence of God, therefor they express their opinion and debate that God doesn't exist. How is this debate illogical

The debate (take out the people debating) is illogical because talking about nothing "as if it is something" makes no sense unless its fiction. However, the difference is, in fiction we know its not real. The debate (take out the people again) is talking about reality. It takes on a more serious outlook. Thats why "it" not the peoples reasons, does not make sense aka illogical.

Why atheist want to debate this "space" ? It's because this "space" may affects and restrict their life therefor they debate. Or they debate because they find fallacy in this "space". How is this debate illogical?

Like above, the debate itself doesn make sense. The "believers", not the debate, are restricting the life of others. The topic and conversation does nothing on its own.

I keep focusing on the debate itself. Youre asking me "why arent these reasons logical?" They are logical. We agree. Thats not my point.

God cannot harm anyone. Its a empty sentence. It doesnt make sense to say he can. Its an illogical statement in itself.(Understand?) Why we talk about it...for the reasons you mentioned. Does the statement makes sense now that you given me logical reasons to discuss it, no. Thats my point.

 

[Thief]

I don't see progress.

 

[Desert Snake]

@Carlita

If you think about it, the only real reason why an atheist would be obsessive about theism, is if there is some 'reason', related to..............theism! That's right....

0(atheism), +1(theism)= 1. Theism.

 

[Pudding]

I kinda think you missed my point. We all have good and logical reasons for talking about space (Ill keep with space since its simple and it doesnt have so many connotations like God).

We continue to do it daily. "Nothing wrong with that" It is odd and it is logical.

I can see it is logical, but i cannot see how it is odd.

Get rid of the reasons.

I cannot see your point for the need to get rid of the reasons.

The debate (take out the people debating) is illogical because talking about nothing "as if it is something" makes no sense unless its fiction. However, the difference is, in fiction we know its not real. The debate (take out the people again) is talking about reality. It takes on a more serious outlook. Thats why "it" not the peoples reasons, does not make sense aka illogical.

I cannot see why it's necessary to "take out the people who're debating" from the debate.

The "nothing" here refer to the concept of God, atheist doesn't believe in God's existence, theist did. They debate about why they believe so. I cannot see how it is illogical or makes no sense.

I cannot see how the "fiction" is relevant in here.
Atheist does not think the existence of God is "real", nor they believe in it. They express their opinion that why they don't believe in God's existence. I cannot get your point why it's illogical.

Like above, the debate itself doesn make sense. The "believers", not the debate, are restricting the life of others. The topic and conversation does nothing on its own.

Some "believers" are restricting the life of others?
Yes, i can agree of.

The topic and conversation does not restricting the life of others?
No, i can't agree of.
The topic and conversation is relevant to why some "believers" think that they're saving/helping others by restricting the life of others. This "believers" believe that their God exist and in an addition to conclude that non-believer must obey their God's morality and law, but non-believer cannot agree with their claims, this is why non-believer debate with believer about the topic of God's existence. It's relevant and logical to debate the topic (in my opinion).

I keep focusing on the debate itself. Youre asking me "why arent these reasons logical?" They are logical. We agree. Thats not my point.

God cannot harm anyone. Its a empty sentence. It doesnt make sense to say he can. Its an illogical statement in itself.(Understand?) Why we talk about it...for the reasons you mentioned. Does the statement makes sense now that you given me logical reasons to discuss it, no. Thats my point.

God is the reason why some believer restricting the life of non-believer.
It's the source of why theist and atheist can't agree with each other, it's the reason why they debate.
Theist believe they're right that God does exist, therefor atheist should obey their God's morality/law, atheist disagree with theist, it's the reason why they debate.
I cannot see how your point lead to the conclusion that the debate is illogical.

 

[Pudding]

@Carlita

If you think about it, the only real reason why an atheist would be obsessive about theism, is if there is some 'reason', related to..............theism! That's right....

0(atheism), +1(theism)= 1. Theism.

The reason why atheist debate with theism is because they don't agree to theism's claims that they should obey theism's morality/law.

If there is no "obligation or imposes to must obey religion's morality/law" towards the atheist to begin with, there should be no debate to begin from atheist.

 

[Pudding]

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

No, i think it can be logical.

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?

You don't need to say "it could exist".
If believers made a claim that "it exist" and you know "it does not exist", the question you say to believers should be "why does it exist" not "it could exist".

With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?

Because some believer believe their God exist and conclude that non-believer should obey their God's morality/law, this is the reason why non-believer want evidence for God to justify they should obey the God's morality/law.

If non-believer find the believer's evidence not convincing, they express their opinion why it is not convincing, this is the reason why they debates.

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"?

Atheist debates because they don't agree with theism's claims.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you for the recap. Im just going to ask for clarification or rephrase your answer so I know if I understood the sentence correctly.

You don't need to say "it could exist".
If believers made a claim that "it exist" and you know "it does not exist", the question you say to believers should be "why does it exist" not "it could exist".

That makes more sense rather than could. An atheist saying could sounds agnostic?

Because some believer believe their God exist and conclude that non-believer should obey their God's morality/law, this is the reason why non-believer want evidence for God to justify they should obey the God's morality/law

Atheist debates because they don't agree with theism's claims

So they are more concerned with the theist making the claim rather than the claim itself?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

My point: The conversation topic does nothing. The claim/statement alone (talking about the claim not the person making it) "God exists" does nothing. That claim does not hurt anyone. It is an empty or illogical statement creating a title an attributes for non existent/space/nothing. This is illogical.

The theists who have this illogical claim are the ones (some) opposing the threat. "They" (not the belief) are using their illogical claim against people. (E.x. the Church). Hence, why it Is logical for atheist to talk "about" it. That does not erase that the claim in itself is illogical.

As an athiest to external deities, I debate this illogical claim because I want to understand how it does make sense to the theist. What are the methods and experences do they have that Id understand how they make this illogical statememt true. "For me" it has nothing to do with how the faith affects people. It does nothing "on its own." People use their faith for or against people.

As a former believer, I read scripture and it did not affect me negatively. It did nothing. Its a book saying something that is not true.

It was the people who used this book and Church teachings that influenced me. They said I should believe in God. Rather than address their belief (which Gods existence claim means nothing, why should I argue it), I address their actions on me to belief this claim. I ask about how the Church views this claim. How they make sense of it. To debate the existence of God does not make sense "For Me" becausenit acheives nothing on those who are enforcing their belief.

Insteadn of my just learning why God exists (for my benefit since He does not), Id think more of how this belief affects peoples actions. I have seen peoples lives saved by their beliefs. I have listened to businesses being shut down because of people (not the belief) impose their belief on the manager to where she had to shut it down temporarly.

Every year I see people go into the Church. It is beautiful when they live how their belief teaches them. Sometimes they do not follow it (hence sin). To help them through it, it is logical to talk about their belief. If there is no problem, because the claim is illogical, the best I can do as an atheist is to learn from it.

Understand?

I can see it is logical, but i cannot see how it is odd.


I cannot see your point for the need to get rid of the reasons.


I cannot see why it's necessary to "take out the people who're debating" from the debate.

The "nothing" here refer to the concept of God, atheist doesn't believe in God's existence, theist did. They debate about why they believe so. I cannot see how it is illogical or makes no sense.

I cannot see how the "fiction" is relevant in here.
Atheist does not think the existence of God is "real", nor they believe in it. They express their opinion that why they don't believe in God's existence. I cannot get your point why it's illogical.


Some "believers" are restricting the life of others?
Yes, i can agree of.

The topic and conversation does not restricting the life of others?
No, i can't agree of.
The topic and conversation is relevant to why some "believers" think that they're saving/helping others by restricting the life of others. This "believers" believe that their God exist and in an addition to conclude that non-believer must obey their God's morality and law, but non-believer cannot agree with their claims, this is why non-believer debate with believer about the topic of God's existence. It's relevant and logical to debate the topic (in my opinion).


God is the reason why some believer restricting the life of non-believer.
It's the source of why theist and atheist can't agree with each other, it's the reason why they debate.
Theist believe they're right that God does exist, therefor atheist should obey their God's morality/law, atheist disagree with theist, it's the reason why they debate.
I cannot see how your point lead to the conclusion that the debate is illogical.

 

[Pudding]

Thank you for the recap. Im just going to ask for clarification or rephrase your answer so I know if I understood the sentence correctly.

No problem.

That makes more sense rather than could. An atheist saying could sounds agnostic?

If a strong atheist say that "God could exist" and he believe what he say, then it does sounds like agnostic.
As strong atheist claim that God doesn't exist; agnostic think that God could exist or don't exist, agnostic don't know the answer.

So they are more concerned with the theist making the claim rather than the claim itself?

"some theist making the claim" - some theist claims that God exist and in addtition to conclude that non-believer should obey their God's morality/law or else receive punishment.

"the claim itself" - the claim which claims by some theist that God exist and in addtition to conclude that non-believer should obey their God's morality/law or else receive punishment.

I cannot see the difference between "some theist making the claim" and "the claim itself", it is same.