Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?

[Magic Man]

"Semantics are the true sign that you have nothing to argue about"

How many times must I repeat that phrase?

I can spot the fact that your entire post is a straw man by the way.

If you'd like me to explain any part of the argument further, let me know. Otherwise, if you want to present a counterargument, I'll gladly listen. As it is, all you have is "New atheism is a religion because they act a certain way and some of them agree on some beliefs". That's not a very convincing argument.

 

[paarsurrey]

Among others, seeking a good mutual understanding.

Acknowledgement and mutual understanding are prerequisites for respectful, productive relationships, after all.

I agree with you.
Peaceful dialogue creates love among the human beings.

Regards

 

[columbus]

"But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype."


~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85

This well explains why the god religionists believe in always sounds like what God would be if they happened to be God.

Tom

 

[steeltoes]

Generally the reason is to try to convince non-believers in God to believe in God.

Why not leave the non-believers alone to live their lives as they see fit? What makes you and your belief in God so special? Personally, I wouldn't try to convince you of anything so what makes you want to convince me?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why not leave the non-believers alone to live their lives as they see fit? What makes you and your belief in God so special? Personally, I wouldn't try to convince you of anything so what makes you want to convince me?

For one thing, most people do have a need of convincing others to some extent. A legitimate one, and quite possibly unavoidable.

 

[Windwalker]

This well explains why the god religionists believe in always sounds like what God would be if they happened to be God.

Tom

The difference is they are simply projecting their egos onto this "power God" representation of themselves - the ego God, so to speak. This is completely contrary to what was being spoken about in that quote where the practitioner visualizes the forms of the deity devoid of ego and self-interest, through which they are then able to realize those qualities in themselves, beyond their own egos and self-interest, such a compassion, etc.

What you say is true in how people use God to justify themselves. But they aren't actually practicing this technique of transformation. They're operating solely out of the egos and using religion and interpreting what God is to justify themselves.

 

[CompleteSubmission]

Why debate the existence of God with non-believers?

Because there is a possibility that something you say will spark something within their heart which will get them to research and maybe become a believer

 

[LuisDantas]

Because there is a possibility that something you say will spark something within their heart which will get them to research and maybe become a believer

So I take it that you find that a good thing?

Maybe you want to tell me why exactly?

 

[HeatherAnn]

Being one does actually exclude being the other. That's the point. You might have some conservative ideas and liberal ideas, but if you're a conservative, you're not a liberal. If you feel you're too much of a mix of the two, then you're an independent or some other word. You can't both believe in something and not believe in it at the same time. It would be like saying you're simultaneously sleeping and not sleeping.

Didn't you use your signature quote because you believe it?
Group thought dictates cognitive distortions like all-or-nothing (polarized) thinking. But thinking with integrity is paradoxical thinking.

One can appreciate various theologies without clinging to them for dear life.
One can reject distorted (but traditional) definitions of God, yet still be in awe at "the kingdom (realm) of God within them."

Why do "Atheists" even have a name if their thinking is too independent to be conclusively labeled?
Why would anyone pretend they are so all-knowing that they know every possible definition of God enough to deny an infinite number of them?
Group thought.

Group thought, IMO is THE most dangerous force in our society.
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

 

[LuisDantas]

Why do "Atheists" even have a name if their thinking is too independent to be conclusively labeled?
Why would anyone pretend they are so all-knowing that they know every possible definition of God enough to deny an infinite number of them?

That does not really resemble atheism very much.

 

[HeatherAnn]

That does not really resemble atheism very much.

I think it's safe to say that the term, "Atheism" represents Atheist beliefs.
You just used the term, Atheism" which term you could not use if it didn't identify a group's belief.

Atheism group thought denies the existence of God.
Please clarify which of the infinite definitions of God does Atheism deny?

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm just saying that you have a poor, unrealistic conception of atheism.

 

[jimniki]

We debate because we are genuinely open minded and would like nothing more than to be convinced in a rational manner of the existence of said god.

We're all still waiting!

 

[Bunyip]

I think it's safe to say that the term, "Atheism" represents Atheist beliefs.

No, that is false. Atheism does not represent atheist beliefs, it is a position on a single claim - that a theistic god exists.

You just used the term, Atheism" which term you could not use if it didn't identify a group's belief.

It is not a belief, it is the absemce of a specific belief.

Atheism group thought denies the existence of God.
Please clarify which of the infinite definitions of God does Atheism deny?

There is no such thing as atheism group thought and atheism does not deny anything.

Theism is the belief in a theistic god.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic god.

 

[HeatherAnn]

I'm just saying that you have a poor, unrealistic conception of atheism.

This is debate subforum, right?
So let's skip the logical fallacies & instead of complaining, tell me exactly why you think my conception of Atheism is poor.
Thanks.

 

[HeatherAnn]

We debate because we are genuinely open minded and would like nothing more than to be convinced in a rational manner of the existence of said god.

We're all still waiting!

Passive approach, but ok...
There are countless definitions of God, have you considered all of them enough to deny them all? That's one big open mind!

Jimniki, consider Philosopher Paul Tillech's definition of God, as one's "ultimate concern."
So, whatever you are most concerned about in practical every day use of time, etc. that is what you worship in a sense, your god, though you may not call it that. It is a much more functional & honest definition & fits with everyone. Even scriptures describe God as Love & "Wherever your treasure is, there the desires of your heart will also be."

 

[HeatherAnn]

There is no such thing as atheism group thought and atheism does not deny anything.

If Atheism was not group thought, there would be no term for such a Belief (or lack of belief) in common.

Theism is the belief in a theistic god.
Atheism is the lack of belief in a theistic god.

By definition, Atheists do not believe in ANY Gods.
Yet how can they know all of the possible definitions of God enough to know they don't believe all?
Blind faith?

IMO, Atheism is even less logical than literally interpreted Theism.
Same cognitive distortions, different group thoughts.
Searching Agnosticism seems much more reasonable.

 

[LuisDantas]

This is debate subforum, right?
So let's skip the logical fallacies & instead of complaining, tell me exactly why you think my conception of Atheism is poor.
Thanks.

For one thing, it treats god as something that must be disproven - in all conceivable conceptions, no less - instead of just not believed in.

There are two big problems with such an approach. One is that it makes little of the idea of god. The other is that it makes little of people who may or may not believe in God.

It also does not have a very good feeling for how atheists think.

 

[jimniki]

It's not the definitions I'm struggling with, it's my so called creator!
It's a tossup between mother nature on her own and mother nature with external non divine help.

Happy to listen to your logic all day, just don't betray the universal laws of physics, then I start to yawn a bit...

Smile!

 

[Bunyip]

If Atheism was not group thought, there would be no term for such a Belief (or lack of belief) in common.

That doesn't make sense Heather. Atheism is a term that identifies a specific position.

By definition, Atheists do not believe in ANY Gods.

No, that is false. Atheism relates to a specific claim - in the context of Christianity for example, I am an atheist.

Yet how can they know all of the possible definitions of God enough to know they don't believe all?

They don't need to. Atheism relates to a specific claim.

Blind faith?

Atheism is the absence of faith.

IMO, Atheism is even less logical than literally interpreted Theism.
Same cognitive distortions, different group thoughts.
Searching Agnosticism seems much more reasonable.

That is only because you have a very distorted conception of what atheism is. Most atheists are agnostic by the way.