Why Debate the Existence of God with Non-believers?

[psychoslice]

I think the reason not to debate with non believers is because, you will most times be proven wrong, that what I believe.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think the reason not to debate with non believers is because, you will most times be proven wrong, that what I believe.

Personally, I want to be proven wrong. If I believe something that's false, then I want to find that false belief, rip it out, and replace it with something better.

 

[jimniki]

And that my friend is all we atheists desire....
We're all looking for truth, in whatever form it takes...

The very first step is to keep an open mind....

 

[Windwalker]

And that my friend is all we atheists desire....
We're all looking for truth, in whatever form it takes...

Including a more mature understanding of God? Or anything, but that?

The very first step is to keep an open mind....

Yes indeed. I personally believe in post-atheism.

 

[Magic Man]

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."

Regarding the bold part:

If you read my comments here, you'd realize that's not what an atheist does. Generally atheists only reject the personal theistic god. That's why it gets confusing. Obviously we don't reject the universe, which is what pantheists believe to be God.

As for the rest, I don't know what it has to do with anything I said.

 

[Magic Man]

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 doesn't refer to a group's beliefs. It only refers to the absence of one particular belief. Even the strong version only refers to one belief (that God doesn't exist).

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

Strong atheism denies the existence of a personal god who actively controls the universe.

There is no atheist group thought. There are groups of atheists who share beliefs, but there is no overall set of beliefs shared by all atheists.

 

[Magic Man]

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

The term "atheism" exists to define the state of not believing in God, so no, there is no group thought.

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?

No, by definition atheists do not believe in the common conception of god - a personal generally anthropomorphic being who controls the universe or aspects of reality. That's why it's a-theism, not adeism or apantheism.

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

Agnosticism answers a different question from atheism. Agnosticism is about knowledge, whereas atheism is about belief. To be an agnostic all you have to do is believe we don't or can't know whether God exists. For instance, I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't think there is a God, but I also don't say we know it with 100% certainty.

Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. As such, it's as logical as lack of belief in Santa Claus or leprechauns. There's nothing at all illogical about it.

 

[Magic Man]

Including a more mature understanding of God? Or anything, but that?

Do you have evidence for your god concept?

Yes indeed. I personally believe in post-atheism.

Which, of course, makes no sense.

 

[Windwalker]

Do you have evidence for your god concept?

Yes.

Which, of course, makes no sense.

From your point of view. Not from mine.

 

[LuisDantas]

How do you characterize post-Atheism?

 

[Magic Man]

Yes.

What is it?

From your point of view. Not from mine.

Sure, and from some people's point of view, literal interpretations of the Bible make sense.

Post-atheism would imply after atheism. If you believe in a time when we can do away with theism and atheism, cool, but post-atheism makes no sense by itself.

 

[Windwalker]

How do you characterize post-Atheism?

I characterize it to what it is for myself. Atheism is defined as not-theism. That is in essence, saying they do not accept the traditional theistic mythological ideas of God. It is defined as a negative. I see that as a first step, a reaction of defining what someone is "not" to differentiate themselves against this prerational version of deity form. In every single argument I have ever heard or participated in myself, is always against the prerational mythic ideas of God. But what of rational views of God? What of transrational views? They are either not recognized, understood, or simply ignored.

I define post-atheism as moving ideas beyond the "not-myth" definition to explore the meanings inherent in spiritual and religious thought beyond myth, as opposed to simply pointing out what's wrong with mythic thought. To disallow any possibility of a more mature understanding of God beyond myth, is to me to be stuck in a self-identity as being defined as "not-myth", and nothing more. It's reaction is, "I can't agree with that reasoning, therefore God doesn't exist. It is always and ever a negative self-definition.

Here's a fantastic quote from Sri Aurobindo I feel captures beautifully both the dignity of atheism, and its inherent limitations. Post-atheism is taking what atheism realizes, rightly so, and building it to the next level in spiritual understanding, growing the baby up, rather than simply jettisoning it with the bathwater of myth:

"It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."



Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13​

 

[Windwalker]

What is it?

Personal experience.

Sure, and from some people's point of view, literal interpretations of the Bible make sense.

That's very true and underscores my point.

Post-atheism would imply after atheism. If you believe in a time when we can do away with theism and atheism, cool, but post-atheism makes no sense by itself.

I believe people can do away with defining themselves in little boxes, which when they do so places limits upon what is allowable and not allowable. Which is exactly my point when I responded to the comment that atheism is open to all possibilities by asking is it open to God? I can't imagine atheism is open to God, since it denies that possibility in its own self-definition. Right? "I believe in the possibility of God", is not atheism, but agnosticism.

Post-atheism is taking the next step beyond saying it doesn't believe in the mythic God (which is in fact what it is defined as as it doesn't fit any other view of God but that one alone). It's like someone defining themselves as divorce their whole life and never moving beyond that failed relationship.

 

[Magic Man]

I characterize it to what it is for myself. Atheism is defined as not-theism. That is in essence, saying they do not accept the traditional theistic mythological ideas of God. It is defined as a negative. I see that as a first step, a reaction of defining what someone is "not" to differentiate themselves against this prerational version of deity form. In every single argument I have ever heard or participated in myself, is always against the prerational mythic ideas of God. But what of rational views of God? What of transrational views? They are either not recognized, understood, or simply ignored.

I define post-atheism as moving ideas beyond the "not-myth" definition to explore the meanings inherent in spiritual and religious thought beyond myth, as opposed to simply pointing out what's wrong with mythic thought. To disallow any possibility of a more mature understanding of God beyond myth, is to me to be stuck in a self-identity as being defined as "not-myth", and nothing more. It's reaction is, "I can't agree with that reasoning, therefore God doesn't exist. It is always and ever a negative self-definition.

Here's a fantastic quote from Sri Aurobindo I feel captures beautifully both the dignity of atheism, and its inherent limitations. Post-atheism is taking what atheism realizes, rightly so, and building it to the next level in spiritual understanding, growing the baby up, rather than simply jettisoning it with the bathwater of myth:

"It is necessary, therefore, that advancing Knowledge should base herself on a clear, pure and disciplined intellect. It is necessary, too, that she should correct her errors sometimes by a return to the restraint of sensible fact, the concrete realities of the physical world. The touch of Earth is always reinvigorating to the son of Earth, even when he seeks a supraphysical Knowledge. It may even be said that the supraphysical can only be really mastered in its fullness – to its heights we can always search– when we keep our feet firmly on the physical. “Earth is His footing,” says the Upanishad whenever it images the Self that manifests in the universe. And it is certainly the fact the wider we extend and the surer we make our knowledge of the physical world, the wider and surer becomes our foundation for the higher knowledge, even for the highest, even for the Brahmavidya.

In emerging, therefore, out of the materialistic period of human Knowledge we must be careful that we do not rashly condemn what we are leaving or throw away even one tittle of its gains, before we can summon perceptions and powers that are well grasped and secure, to occupy their place. Rather we shall observe with respect and wonder the work that Atheism had done for the Divine and admire the services that Agnosticism has rendered in preparing the illimitable increase of knowledge. In our world error is continually the handmaid and pathfinder of Truth; for error is really a half-truth that stumbles because of its limitations; often it is Truth that wears a disguise in order to arrive unobserved near to its goal. Well, if it could always be, as it has been in the great period we are leaving, the faithful handmaid, severe, conscientious, clean-handed, luminous within its limits, a half-truth and not a reckless and presumptuous aberration."



Sri Aurobindo, The Life Divine, pg 12,13​

Atheism, as you say, is in response to theism. There will always be people who don't believe in or reject theism. It might be that religions like the big three will fade away over the next 50-100 years, so that identifying as atheist isn't necessary or especially useful. I hope that's the case.

Maybe other concepts of God will come to dominate, in which case, identifying as atheist will still be useful and necessary.

You speak of your god concept as "mature" and "beyond" the common God of the big three. You also say it's rational. It might be different and less ridiculous, but unless you have real evidence for it existing, it's not that special. It might be that you find it interesting and fulfilling to look at the universe that way - if so, more power to you - but there are a lot of other religions and philosophies that don't get much attention, just like yours.

Also, myth itself is a wonderful thing, but only when used correctly. The problem is taking myths literally. The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't mean I'm anti-myth. It means I advocate for a better understanding and use of myths.

 

[Magic Man]

Personal experience.

So, no then?

That's very true and underscores my point.

Only if your point is that your belief is as nonsensical as the idea of a literal understanding of the Bible.

I believe people can do away with defining themselves in little boxes, which when they do so places limits upon what is allowable and not allowable.

Labels can be useful, but not always. Defining myself as an atheist gives people some good info about me.

Which is exactly my point when I responded to the comment that atheism is open to all possibilities by asking is it open to God? I can't imagine atheism is open to God, since it denies possibility it is own self-definition. Right?

The point was that atheists a lot of times are open to a god existing, as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove it to a reasonable degree. Atheism doesn't mean you're not open to other possibilities; it just means you don't believe God exists.

Post-atheism is taking the next step beyond saying it doesn't believe in the mythic God (which is in fact what it is defined as as it doesn't fit any other view of God but that one alone). It's like someone defining themselves as divorce their whole life and never moving beyond that failed relationship.

It's actually nothing like that. If an atheist then finds another "relationship", they'd define themselves by that one. Sometimes an atheist will turn to pantheism or panentheism or various other religious beliefs. There is no need for "post-atheism".

 

[Windwalker]

Maybe other concepts of God will come to dominate, in which case, identifying as atheist will still be useful and necessary.

Why, if they are not incompatible with reason and rationality? That wouldn't be very rational, and thus seemingly more religious in nature; i.e., the original complaint that it is some form of "group" identification. That always runs into rational problems, like this.

You speak of your god concept as "mature" and "beyond" the common God of the big three. You also say it's rational. It might be different and less ridiculous, but unless you have real evidence for it existing, it's not that special.

Quick to dismiss, I see. Let's see. "Here's the criteria I'm establishing to prove the existence of God. It must been green, taste like ice cream, and fit into a shoe box of my choosing. If you can't prove this God exists, then it's nonsense." Okay then. I don't consider this rational.

"Real evidence". What is "real evidence" to you? Capturing God in the forest like a Big Foot or something?

It might be that you find it interesting and fulfilling to look at the universe that way - if so, more power to you - but there are a lot of other religions and philosophies that don't get much attention, just like yours.

And so, to Heather's point once again, you simply choose to lump them all together?

Also, myth itself is a wonderful thing, but only when used correctly. The problem is taking myths literally. The fact that I'm an atheist doesn't mean I'm anti-myth. It means I advocate for a better understanding and use of myths.

Well, there's a deeper truth in this than what I think you realize! Yes, now apply this to understanding why people speak of God in mythological terms as literal facts, and see if you can see God beyond that mode of thought? What is in the myth that speaks to something legitimate? Can you see anything, or is it just "nonfactual" and "lacking evidence" to you? Isn't this you seeing myth as literal too? It's either literally true, or literally false? Nothing more? Just that binary mode of thought?

 

[Windwalker]

So, no then?

So then yes. Personal experience is evidence. I don't just believe stuff based on ideas or concepts. It must have practical reality, which is known through personal experience. That is evidence.

Only if your point is that your belief is as nonsensical as the idea of a literal understanding of the Bible.

To me, many of your points are as shortsighted as those are. Just of a different sort of myth.

Labels can be useful, but not always. Defining myself as an atheist gives people some good info about me.

And also puts a ceiling over your head because it says clearly "This point, and no further". What you tell others about yourself this way, is telling yourself what your own boundaries are. You missed my point. You are limiting possibility in calling yourself "atheist". That's fine if that's your choice, but make no mistake, it's not based on evidence, but choice.

The point was that atheists a lot of times are open to a god existing, as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove it to a reasonable degree.

According to some pre-defined criteria created out of thin air. If you had a personal experience of God, it is more than a reasonable degree of certainty. It's pretty much undeniable, as if you look though the telescope and saw the rings of Saturn yourself while someone who lacks that experience is doubting you saying "Where's your evidence?". What would you say to that?

Atheism doesn't mean you're not open to other possibilities; it just means you don't believe God exists.

Which means you're open to all "other possibilities", except the one you don't believe exists. You don't seem to understand how the mind works when we tell ourselves "this is reality". It excludes everything that doesn't fit. It's putting blinders on, regardless of how much "evidence" you think you see. You exclude what doesn't fit. You filter it out. If you were truly open to possibilities, you would make exactly zero pronouncements about God.

It's actually nothing like that. If an atheist then finds another "relationship", they'd define themselves by that one. Sometimes an atheist will turn to pantheism or panentheism or various other religious beliefs. There is no need for "post-atheism".

It is post-atheism if you take what you learned from atheism and integrated it into a new reality that builds upon it, yet is not longer defined by it. That's what I was driving at. If you're a panenthiest like me, you're post-atheist if you utilized it, but moved beyond it as the defining identity. Atheism is deconstruction. To stop at deconstruction does nothing but leave a smoking heap and nothing new. 'Okay, so you don't believe in the mythic-literal interpretation of God. Now what?' That's the real question. What does "post-atheist" realization tell you next? "There is no God", is hardly advancing understanding. It's iconoclasm with no vision beyond the ruins.

 

[Magic Man]

Why, if they are not incompatible with reason and rationality? That wouldn't be very rational, and thus seemingly more religious in nature; i.e., the original complaint that it is some form of "group" identification. That always runs into rational problems, like this.

It doesn't matter how reasonable or rational they are. If some people believe in God, and they are the dominant group, identifying as atheist would still be useful.

Quick to dismiss, I see. Let's see. "Here's the criteria I'm establishing to prove the existence of God. It must been green, taste like ice cream, and fit into a shoe box of my choosing. If you can't prove this God exists, then it's nonsense." Okay then. I don't consider this rational.

Or you could just provide evidence of your god. I didn't think that was asking too much. My real point was that you have a conception of god that you think is so beyond normal conception and so mature. Whether or not that's even true is irrelevant. It's still a god concept.

"Real evidence". What is "real evidence" to you? Capturing God in the forest like a Big Foot or something?

No, showing something that indicates a need for your god, or that indicates your god's existence in some way that stands up to inquiry. Real evidence would be a claim about your god that we could test and verify that the results are exactly what we'd expect if your god existed and couldn't also be the case if your god didn't exist.

And so, to Heather's point once again, you simply choose to lump them all together?

To a certain degree, but not completely. There's a big difference between pantheism and Christianity. They're both views of the universe I don't identify with, but in pantheism's case, it's more about just not seeing the point in considering the universe "God". My point is that even if you're talking about something like pantheism that isn't really unreasonable, it's not going to be a mindset most people see as appealing.

Well, there's a deeper truth in this than what I think you realize! Yes, now apply this to understanding why people speak of God in mythological terms as literal facts, and see if you can see God beyond that mode of thought? What is in the myth that speaks to something legitimate? Can you see anything, or is it just "nonfactual" and "lacking evidence" to you? Isn't this you seeing myth as literal too? It's either literally true, or literally false? Nothing more? Just that binary mode of thought?

I have no idea what you're saying. If you take myths as what they are, rather than literal facts, then they work well. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Magic Man]

So then yes. Personal experience is evidence. I don't just believe stuff based on ideas or concepts. It must have practical reality, which is known through personal experience. That is evidence.

Personal experience isn't evidence of something being factual. It's also very unreliable. I'm talking about real evidence like claims that can be and have been tested and shown to be true.

To me, many of your points are as shortsighted as those are. Just of a different sort of myth.

Yes, I realize to someone as adept as you in the art of deepitudes and philosophizing nonsensically, it probably does seem that way.

And also puts a ceiling over your head because it says clearly "This point, and no further". What you tell others about yourself this way, is telling yourself what your own boundaries are. You missed my point. You are limiting possibility in calling yourself "atheist". That's fine if that's your choice, but make no mistake, it's not based on evidence, but choice.

Nope. Not at all. All I'm saying is I realize that this concept that dominates our culture is not real. It doesn't say anything else about me. It doesn't mean I am limited in any way.

According to some pre-defined criteria created out of thin air.

According to any criteria you want. You set the criteria and show the evidence. No one's trying to limit you. The only request is that however you define God, you give actual evidence, not just personal experience.

If you had a personal experience of God, it is more than a reasonable degree of certainty. It's pretty much undeniable, as if you look though the telescope and saw the rings of Saturn yourself while someone who lacks that experience is doubting you saying "Where's your evidence?". What would you say to that?

I would realize that it's just personal experience, which is unreliable and prone to errors. Personal experience is not sufficient evidence to reasonably prove something exists. A lot of people have personal experience of all kinds of things, like Yahweh, the holy spirit, Allah, and many other gods.

Which means you're open to all "other possibilities", except the one you don't believe exists.

It actually doesn't mean that at all. Stop for a second and listen. The point is we're open to anything, but it has to have sufficient evidence. If someone can give such evidence for any god, we'll listen. With that said, it seems pretty clear no one is going to come up with that evidence for Yahweh or similar gods, just like no one is going to come up with such evidence for leprechauns. I won't refuse to see it, if they do, but chances are pretty darn slim.

You don't seem to understand how the mind works when we tell ourselves "this is reality". It excludes everything that doesn't fit. It's putting blinders on, regardless of how much "evidence" you think you see. You exclude what doesn't fit. You filter it out. If you were truly open to possibilities, you would make exactly zero pronouncements about God.

You don't seem to understand how the mind works. It's true that a lot of times people are biased to the point of not being able to see other possibilities. It's not true that that's the only way the mind works. It's not that hard to form conclusions and beliefs while leaving open the possibility that you're wrong and to not filter out evidence against your position.

You can be truly open to possibilities while still making pronouncements. I don't even understand why you think it's impossible.

It is post-atheism if you take what you learned from atheism and integrated it into a new reality that builds upon it, yet is not longer defined by it.

That's not post-atheism. You'd still be an atheist. Someone who starts out as a Christian, stops believing in God and Christianity, and then forms beliefs consistent with humanism isn't a post-atheist. They might identify as humanist at that point, which implies atheism, but they're still technically an atheist. I say I'm an atheist because I don't feel the need to identify as any other -ism at this point. Maybe some day, I'll feel like it's useful. No matter what, though, I won't be post-atheist.

 

[Windwalker]

It doesn't matter how reasonable or rational they are. If some people believe in God, and they are the dominant group, identifying as atheist would still be useful.

So, you are saying that atheism is useful to say you reject any rational view of God, ones which accept science and reason, one's which embrace progress and humanity? Well, at that point, they would really look a whole lot like the Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps of the the religious world. Now wouldn't they? "We reject rationality!". Nah, actually, it would seem like a pointless group that has some personal ax to grind, nothing based on reason. You really have to agree with this. If not, on what rational grounds not?

Or you could just provide evidence of your god. I didn't think that was asking too much.

I don't think its too much for you to provide what your reasonable criteria for evidence would be. Let's examine that more closely and see what it exposes in your request. What sort of evidence would you like? A body? Footprints? Blood and hair samples? What exactly? What does it look like? How do you examine it? I don't think that's unreasonable for me to ask.

My real point was that you have a conception of god that you think is so beyond normal conception and so mature. Whether or not that's even true is irrelevant. It's still a god concept.

I have a way to describe my experience. I don't hold my descriptions however as the definition of God. I don't approach God as a concept. I don't "believe in" God in this way. It's not a cognitive-based reality.

No, showing something that indicates a need for your god, or that indicates your god's existence in some way that stands up to inquiry.

Well, see right there you seem to think God is "needed" for physics to work, or something. Why else that criteria? You see, you're starting with an idea of God straight out of mythic-literal belief systems. You can't shake it, and thus you set a false criteria for green ice cream or Big Foot or something. "God" to you has to look like what myth portrays.

Does God stand up to inquiry? Sure. If you inquire not looking for your ideas to match up to what you find. If you open yourself, truly open yourself, then your ideas will be informed by your experience - not speculating about the moons of Jupiter without every looking through a telescope.

Real evidence would be a claim about your god that we could test and verify that the results are exactly what we'd expect if your god existed and couldn't also be the case if your god didn't exist.

But what if the experiment required not an critical analysis of the data in order to see it, but actually going into the tank and submerging yourself as the research in order to see? You are expecting it to fit what you have pre-defined as valid, and that is invalid. Of course you're not going to see "that" God! You've said God must be testable like a rock is!

To a certain degree, but not completely. There's a big difference between pantheism and Christianity. They're both views of the universe I don't identify with, but in pantheism's case, it's more about just not seeing the point in considering the universe "God".

Not "considering it God". But experiencing it as God. Whopping big difference. It's a theistic view, not atheistic.

My point is that even if you're talking about something like pantheism that isn't really unreasonable, it's not going to be a mindset most people see as appealing.

Which people? Scientistic Materialists? So, atheism is best defined as Scientisim of the Philosophical Materialist Reductionist flavor?

I have no idea what you're saying. If you take myths as what they are, rather than literal facts, then they work well. That's all I'm saying.

So then why are you unable to see God in the myth? Why are you saying it's all nonfactual lacking evidence, etc? Doesn't sound to me like you get myth. It's sounds like you reject is as nonfactual, end of story.