Pointless Debate

[Iti oj]

Sheesh. Guys. I must have picked a nerve. 10 alerts. Hold a sec

you should re read my reply. I think it was both freindnly and informative.

 

[Bunyip]

Wow..Im just talking about God not theism and not atheism. Im asking about why a hardncore atheist who knows God does not exist woud, in a RF for example, talk about God as if He does?

Well because we want to engage with the hypothesis. I thought that was obvious.

gosh. I dont know how else to ask the question. Posters are taking it too personally to really know in general why an atheist would talk about something that doesnt exist.

I hope you are not referring to me, I'm certainly not taking anything personally.

Like saying: "oh, this invisible box is nice. It has pink on both sides and blue on the other. Its a tiny box"

Maybe in a conversation that may go well depending on the goal of the conversation. In and of itself, for an atheist to talk about it as if it exists is illogical. Why do so?

Why is it illogical to address the claims of theism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well exploring anybody else's spiritual ideas would benefit anybodies own understandings of spirituality. Considering ideas different from our own is how we learn.

Ok. Thats true. What I was trying to get at is it is, "in itself", illogical to talk about something as if it existed to the point of belitting peoples views and beliefs because of it.

Its a philosophical and maybe psychological question not personal.

Most christians I know would not talk as if God does not exist. They may think of reasons why they "could" talk about a non existing God. Yetx they feel its illogical to do so. From their perspective, I agree. How would it benefit them to talk as if God does not exist?

With atheist, I dont see the same concept (just switched)...for some reason a lot of people feel the need (cause it affects them) or the want (curiosity) to talk about God. Yet, to me, its like they are using the name Jane, talking to Janes friends, even can vouch for what Jane did from a book yet none of it is real because jane does not exist.

Im sure not a strong athiest talk as if God exist. If they did, I ponder why.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Im lost in these alerts. Which number?

you should re read my reply. I think it was both freindnly and informative.

 

[Bunyip]

Ok. Thats true. What I was trying to get at is it is, "in itself", illogical to talk about something as if it existed to the point of belitting peoples views and beliefs because of it.

Why would it be illogical? Surely if somebody was claiming to have spoken to a leprechaun (for example) discussing it with them, even though you do not believe in leprechauns is perfectly logical?

Its a philosophical and maybe psychological question not personal.

Most christians I know would not talk as if God does not exist. They may think of reasons why they "could" talk about a non existing God. Yetx they feel its illogical to do so. From their perspective, I agree. How would it benefit them to talk as if God does not exist?

Because any sensible person would consider both sides of an argument.

With atheist, I dont see the same concept (just switched)...for some reason a lot of people feel the need (cause it affects them) or the want (curiosity) to talk about God. Yet, to me, its like they are using the name Jane, talking to Janes friends, even can vouch for what Jane did from a book yet none of it is real because jane does not exist.

Im sure not a strong athiest talk as if God exist. If they did, I ponder why.

To discuss the hypothesis with believers.

 

[Iti oj]

Im lost in these alerts. Which number?

Pointless Debate | Page 2 | ReligiousForums.com

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well because we want to engage with the hypothesis. I thought that was obvious. I hope you are not referring to me, I'm certainly not taking anything personally. Why is it illogical to address the claims of theism?

Its illogical "in and of itself" to talk about a God as if he existed. Hindu, buddhist (have gods too), paganism, abrahamic, etc included.

In and of itself, to talk about something that does not exist is pointless.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wow..Im just talking about God not theism and not atheism. Im asking about why a hardncore atheist who knows God does not exist woud, in a RF for example, talk about God as if He does?

Think of it as us trying to show empathy, and put things in terms that a theist might understand.
Feel free to provide an example of what you're talking about, if you like, but here's an example from my own posting history;

(I'm paraphrasing slightly, but this is the gist)

I'm happy to let God judge my behaviour after death, I just wish theists would afford him the same grace.

So that would be an instance of me referring to God as if he exists. But I don't think he does. I don't actually know though. Maybe he does. He could be a girl, even. *shudders*
(errr..that last was a joke. Crap joke, sure, but if @MysticSang'ha eviscerates me, I'd like my tombstone to read 'But I was just kidding!')

gosh. I dont know how else to ask the question. Posters are taking it too personally to really know in general why an atheist would talk about something that doesn't exist.

Personally? Sure. But I'm not angry about it. Just discussing. But it's personal because you're effectively telling us we're wasting our time being here.

Like saying: "oh, this invisible box is nice. It has pink on both sides and blue on the other. Its a tiny box"

Strawmanish? Can you give an example of an atheist talking about the invisible box, apart from saying to people something like 'Why do you believe in an invisible box? Do you have any evidence of the invisible box?'
I'm pretty sure there aren't any instances of atheists talking about how long God's beard might be, at least not without their tongue in their cheek.

Maybe in a conversation that may go well depending on the goal of the conversation. In and of itself, for an atheist to talk about it as if it exists is illogical. Why do so?

Well, hopefully my little example based on when I can remember doing it might illustrate why we do it (to try and make ourselves understood by a non-atheist) but other than that I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean. Examples would help.

 

[Bunyip]

Its illogical "in and of itself" to talk about a God as if he existed. Hindu, buddhist (have gods too), paganism, abrahamic, etc included.

In and of itself, to talk about something that does not exist is pointless.

Well no, it is not at all illogical to discuss a hypothetical entity. Why would you think it is?

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. why talk about nothing?

Why talk about anything? What does talking achieve? Yakariyak, bla, bla, bla. That is why some Hindu ascetics take the vow of silence (Mauni baba - Maun, not talking). They have considered it all. Some take the vow for a specified time.

Tapoban (14,500 ft.) and Shivling peak (21,750 ft.), Bhole baba's hut. He was a Bengali, visited this terrace and could not leave it. Later, his wife also joined him here. Trekkers to Tapoban could find shelter for night, simple food and blankets here. Bhole baba's hut against the Bhagirathi peaks. After the Baba passed away the lady continued to live there. Bengali mai (Mother). Another young (27 years) Mauni baba at Tapovan.

Mata at Tapovan - Himalaya | Sulekha Creative

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If its just hypothesis, then it makes sense

Why would it be illogical? Surely if somebody was claiming to have spoken to a leprechaun (for example) discussing it with them, even though you do not believe in leprechauns is perfectly logical?

I guess it depends on the person. Some atheist dont want to bother with non existing concepts that arent relevant to their life. Those that do, online, instead of talking about it like the DIRs and comparative religion, they debate it.

To me, its not like fiction. We can talk about characters or what comic person you like and why. Religion is personal not hypothetical. So it makes me wonder when strong atheist talk about God, are they really geting what the theist is saying? Do they have a similar foundation to conversate...especially when debating Gods existence.
---

I lost my points. I was thinking if I had a conversation with a non existant person name Jane, that would be silly unless it benefits me in some way or i find some logic in it. The exact same as talking with someone else about Jane I am still talking about her with or without a conversant. The point that she exists for me to talk about her makes it/the action illogical Not the reasons behind it.

Why would it be illogical? Surely if somebody was claiming to have spoken to a leprechaun (for example) discussing it with them, even though you do not believe in leprechauns is perfectly logical? Because any sensible person would consider both sides of an argument. To discuss the hypothesis with believers.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Theres a zen monastary in the mountains north of me that have vows of silence retreat for lay people. Ive always wanted to go but no transportation. Are there centers that have that for the lay or is it for monks?

Why talk about anything? What does talking achieve? Yakariyak, bla, bla, bla. That is why some Hindu ascetics take the vow of silence (Mauni baba - Maun, not talking). They have considered it all. Some take the vow for a specified time.

Tapoban and Shivling peak, Bhole baba's hut. He was a Bengali, visited this terrace and could not leave it. Later, his wife also joined him here. Trekkers to Tapoban could find shelter for night, simple food and blankets here. Bhole baba's hut against the Bhagirathi peaks. After the Baba passed away the lady continued to live there. Bengali mai (Mother). Another young (27 years) Mauni baba at Tapovan.

Mata at Tapovan - Himalaya | Sulekha Creative

 

[Katzpur]

That is why some Hindu ascetics take the vow of silence (Mauni baba - Maun, not talking).

I know of a few RFers who really ought to try it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Would you like to debate an empty box?

Say that there is a pink elephant in the box (then I will debate it).

I was thinking if I had a conversation with a non existent person name Jane, that would be silly unless it benefits me in some way or i find some logic in it.

That is why people like me become atheist. However long we may talk about her or ascribe miracles to her, Jane is non-existent.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Well no, it is not at all illogical to discuss a hypothetical entity. Why would you think it is?

Respect and sanctity for specific ways in which some Gods are defined by their followers. I dont treat it as hypotheticals. In my opinion amd belief, unless the other party is aware we dont see eye to eye, to talk about God as if He exist even hypotheticaly is misleading.

Ive talked with people who believe I believe in the christian God because I talked with them with the understanding of how personal God is to the believer and for the Church when I practiced. If occured to me that speaking as if God exists (hypotheticals) did not help me connect in understanding others in conversation. I only use it when they know my view from me not from labels.

Talking with atheists is harder because the ones i talk with online have some sort of grudge or discomfort in their former faith. The OP wasnt about any particular God just why atheisf would talk about nothing (like why would i pretend im eating food because others do).

Except for a selected few here, I usually have good conversations when it happens with believers of any faith. With some atheist, i cant tell whay the believe so its hard to know what to say

Anyway long answer. I guess if one is talking about it in a story, fiction, or something. Think ofnit as talking to youself in a hypothetical or an atheist praying. Same thing.

 

[Bunyip]

Respect and sanctity for specific ways in which some Gods are defined by their followers. I dont treat it as hypotheticals. In my opinion amd belief, unless the other party is aware we dont see eye to eye, to talk about God as if He exist even hypotheticaly is misleading.

No, it is not at all misleading. As I said, you can discuss an idea whether you believe it or not. Much of law is tought in terms of hypothetical cases for example.

Ive talked with people who believe I believe in the christian God because I talked with them with the understanding of how personal God is to the believer and for the Church when I practiced. If occured to me that speaking as if God exists (hypotheticals) did not help me connect in understanding others in conversation. I only use it when they know my view from me not from labels.

Well it helps me connect with them. I find religion fascinating. Few things are more interesting than what we believe.

Talking with atheists is harder because the ones i talk with online have some sort of grudge or discomfort in their former faith. The OP wasnt about any particular God just why atheisf would talk about nothing (like why would i pretend im eating food because others do).

Except for a selected few here, I usually have good conversations when it happens with believers of any faith. With some atheist, i cant tell whay the believe so its hard to know what to say

Anyway long answer. I guess if one is talking about it in a story, fiction, or something. Think ofnit as talking to youself in a hypothetical or an atheist praying. Same thing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you for the respectful reply. I didnt mean to insult anyone. I just find it odd.

An example?

Ill use myself as an example.
Original question from OP edited

i.e. If millions of people just believed God exist and I know it does not....why would I say "God'could' exist" literally just because believers made that claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?"

If nothing is in your hand and Jane said there is and you said no, how would it benefit you (pretending you know God does not exist) inwardly...how woule it affect your world values, what makes you, you by talking about nothing in your hand?

Of course you can learn from janes perspective. We can debate the logistics behind it. Knowing the logic that nothing is in your hand, whay is there to debate about?

In my humble opinion, the atheistic debates are wrapped around the believers claims. I participate too, and sometimes if I cannot learn from the theist view I let it go. Other times I will conversate in their language but never in hypotheticals because I am very much intuned with my former faith. So I can relate.

If there were no theistic claims, what would atheist talk about? Would it be God? Since nothing is in our hands as atheist, why talk amongst ourselves as if something was there.

Maybe only few people do and the majority dont. I dont know.

Cant think of any other way to phrase the question.

Think of it as us trying to show empathy, and put things in terms that a theist might understand.
Feel free to provide an example of what you're talking about, if you like, but here's an example from my own posting history;

(I'm paraphrasing slightly, but this is the gist)


So that would be an instance of me referring to God as if he exists. But I don't think he does. I don't actually know though. Maybe he does. He could be a girl, even. *shudders*
(errr..that last was a joke. Crap joke, sure, but if @MysticSang'ha eviscerates me, I'd like my tombstone to read 'But I was just kidding!')



Personally? Sure. But I'm not angry about it. Just discussing. But it's personal because you're effectively telling us we're wasting our time being here.



Strawmanish? Can you give an example of an atheist talking about the invisible box, apart from saying to people something like 'Why do you believe in an invisible box? Do you have any evidence of the invisible box?'
I'm pretty sure there aren't any instances of atheists talking about how long God's beard might be, at least not without their tongue in their cheek.



Well, hopefully my little example based on when I can remember doing it might illustrate why we do it (to try and make ourselves understood by a non-atheist) but other than that I'm a little unsure exactly what you mean. Examples would help.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In India, one can join an ashram (hermitage) and go by its rule, ashrams will have rules. Those who do not very much like to be bound by the rules can go it solo, anywhere, whether in Himalayas or in jungles of Central India or the Western Ghat Mountains or under a banyan tree in Goa.

Belief in a non-existent Jane with a cane in her hand like an old school head-mistress can help some people, that is why a Hindu is not supposed to deny the existence of even a hypothetical Jane. You see, one shoe does not fit all. My shoe size is different from yours.

 

[Bunyip]

Thank you for the respectful reply. I didnt mean to insult anyone. I just find it odd.

An example?

Ill use myself as an example.
Original question from OP edited

i.e. If millions of people just believed God exist and I know it does not....why would I say "God'could' exist" literally just because believers made that claim? With God, why would I want evidence for someone that does not exist? What is behind building debates around nothing?"

If nothing is in your hand and Jane said there is and you said no, how would it benefit you (pretending you know God does not exist) inwardly...how woule it affect your world values, what makes you, you by talking about nothing in your hand?

Of course you can learn from janes perspective. We can debate the logistics behind it. Knowing the logic that nothing is in your hand, whay is there to debate about?

In my humble opinion, the atheistic debates are wrapped around the believers claims. I participate too, and sometimes if I cannot learn from the theist view I let it go. Other times I will conversate in their language but never in hypotheticals because I am very much intuned with my former faith. So I can relate.

If there were no theistic claims, what would atheist talk about? Would it be God? Since nothing is in our hands as atheist, why talk amongst ourselves as if something was there.

Maybe only few people do and the majority dont. I dont know.

Cant think of any other way to phrase the question.

If you look at many religious mythologies, whether or not the deity really exists or not is pretty much irrelevant. Much of Greco/Roman mythology is about the meaning of the story, not the historicity of it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"47. Our brains crave mental stimulation. Men especially would rather receive electric shocks than sit quietly in a room and think!"
50 Amazing Human Brain Facts (Based on the Latest Science) | Be Brain Fit
Source: Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind