Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Why "Existence-of-God" debates are pointless

USAPitBull63
Posts: 668
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:44:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Belief in at least one deity, such as the Christian God, is based on faith. Religious faith--universally, admittedly, inherently--is belief (of whatever) despite the lack of empirical or logical evidence or proof that (whatever) exists or will exist.

Atheists do not believe in a deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for atheists to challenge a believer, of whatever religion, to "prove" or even evidence that God exists. It presumes faith can and should be held to a standard (logical/empirical) by which it was never intended or designed to be measured.

Religious people tend to believe in at least one deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for them to try and persuade an atheist (or nonbeliever) through empirical evidence or self-proclaimed proof of at least one deity's existence.

If atheists (or any nonbelievers) want to persuade believers to see things a different way, great; but they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments. Similarly, if believers want to persuade non-believers to see things differently, they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments.

Otherwise, the circularity will never stop (not that I ever expect it to).
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Posts: 2,900
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:46:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 2:44:46 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Belief in at least one deity, such as the Christian God, is based on faith. Religious faith--universally, admittedly, inherently--is belief (of whatever) despite the lack of empirical or logical evidence or proof that (whatever) exists or will exist.

Atheists do not believe in a deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for atheists to challenge a believer, of whatever religion, to "prove" or even evidence that God exists. It presumes faith can and should be held to a standard (logical/empirical) by which it was never intended or designed to be measured.

Religious people tend to believe in at least one deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for them to try and persuade an atheist (or nonbeliever) through empirical evidence or self-proclaimed proof of at least one deity's existence.

If atheists (or any nonbelievers) want to persuade believers to see things a different way, great; but they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments. Similarly, if believers want to persuade non-believers to see things differently, they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments.

Otherwise, the circularity will never stop (not that I ever expect it to).

I agree.
'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 4:18:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
That's true. Well said. It all boils down to about 4-6 basic arguments with truly nothing new under the sun. Same arguments over and over, ad infinitum. I haven't seen a new twist to the POE or freewill points in years. And actually I don't expect to. IMO, the reason for any perceived effectiveness of these arguments is related, not the accuracy of them, but to the inaccuracy of Calvinism. The assumptions are all wrong.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 9:24:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Anyone else think this is the kind of post that someone who has tried to convince others and failed (or has been tried to be convinced and doesn't like it) puts?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:00:03 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I completely disagree with this thread... My views on many matters have been fine-tuned and changed due to debating the existence of God, and I have learned a lot I didn'tknow before. If I never did engage in certain debates that I have, I would still be holding on to views that I now believe are probably wrong.

I believe debating the existence of God has many benefits as far as knowledge is concerned, and it not pointless at all. Also I don't debate to convert the other person necessarily, but I debate out of curiosity regarding what their response will be to my arguments, and whether or not my arguments are good enough to keep defending.

If anybody has had their views change even slightly due to debating the existence of God, then I find it hard to also claim in the same breath that debating the existence of God is pointless.
Reluctant_Liberal
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:07:11 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 2:44:46 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Belief in at least one deity, such as the Christian God, is based on faith. Religious faith--universally, admittedly, inherently--is belief (of whatever) despite the lack of empirical or logical evidence or proof that (whatever) exists or will exist.

Atheists do not believe in a deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for atheists to challenge a believer, of whatever religion, to "prove" or even evidence that God exists. It presumes faith can and should be held to a standard (logical/empirical) by which it was never intended or designed to be measured.

Religious people tend to believe in at least one deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for them to try and persuade an atheist (or nonbeliever) through empirical evidence or self-proclaimed proof of at least one deity's existence.

If atheists (or any nonbelievers) want to persuade believers to see things a different way, great; but they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments. Similarly, if believers want to persuade non-believers to see things differently, they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments.

Otherwise, the circularity will never stop (not that I ever expect it to).

So, I mostly agree with the conclusion of this post, but the reasoning is all wrong. Belief in God has been intended for centuries to be an argument based, rational belief. Anselm in tenth or eleventh century is the first one I can think of who argued that belief in God was rationally necessary (though I'm probably forgetting something from Augustine), but ever since then rational standards HAVE been applied to belief in God.

AND people have been convinced to change their views by evidence/logical arguments, even if it doesn't happen very often on this website.

But I do agree with annanicole that their are only a few different arguments for either side, all of which I find incredibly boring and inconclusive.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:36:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
There's a massive problem with this viewpoint. If you don't have some kind of vetting process for your beliefs - i.e., if you disregard evidence in the formation of your belief system, you are overwhelmingly likely to hold beliefs which are untrue. Why? Because the number of possible false beliefs vastly outnumber the number of beliefs which are actually true. So if you pick one at random (which is what your claim reduces to) your beliefs are certainly false.
Charles0103
Posts: 523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:56:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 2:44:46 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Belief in at least one deity, such as the Christian God, is based on faith. Religious faith--universally, admittedly, inherently--is belief (of whatever) despite the lack of empirical or logical evidence or proof that (whatever) exists or will exist.

Atheists do not believe in a deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for atheists to challenge a believer, of whatever religion, to "prove" or even evidence that God exists. It presumes faith can and should be held to a standard (logical/empirical) by which it was never intended or designed to be measured.

Religious people tend to believe in at least one deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for them to try and persuade an atheist (or nonbeliever) through empirical evidence or self-proclaimed proof of at least one deity's existence.

If atheists (or any nonbelievers) want to persuade believers to see things a different way, great; but they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments. Similarly, if believers want to persuade non-believers to see things differently, they should avoid the evidentiary (empirically/logically) approach/arguments.

Otherwise, the circularity will never stop (not that I ever expect it to).

I actually believe that there is strong evidence pointing towards the resurrection of Jesus. That's why I'm a Christian. I think there can be and are good debates about the evidence.
"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened." Jesus in Luke 11:9-10
Reluctant_Liberal
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:19:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 10:56:12 AM, Charles0103 wrote:
At 7/4/2012 2:44:46 AM, USAPitBull63 wrote:
Belief in at least one deity, such as the Christian God, is based on faith. Religious faith--universally, admittedly, inherently--is belief (of whatever) despite the lack of empirical or logical evidence or proof that (whatever) exists or will exist.

Atheists do not believe in a deity. Okay. More power to them. But it is pointless for atheists to challenge a believer, of whatever religion, to "prove" or even evidence that God exists. It presumes faith can and should be held to a standard (logical/empirical) by which it was never intended or designed to be measured.

I actually believe that there is strong evidence pointing towards the resurrection of Jesus. That's why I'm a Christian. I think there can be and are good debates about the evidence.

Case in point.
Tnkissfan
Posts: 199
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:43:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Maybe it should be pointed out that you probably won't convert someone by debating EOG but you can bounce ideas off others to see how well they hold up. I know I've learned a lot by debating and it may not convince anyone of anything but it helps educate, not only oneself but perhaps others as well.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 1:44:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:43:17 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Maybe it should be pointed out that you probably won't convert someone by debating EOG but you can bounce ideas off others to see how well they hold up. I know I've learned a lot by debating and it may not convince anyone of anything but it helps educate, not only oneself but perhaps others as well.

This.
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:18:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You fill me with the urge to defecate.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
Dogknox
Posts: 5,039
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 9:30:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 1:44:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/4/2012 1:43:17 PM, Tnkissfan wrote:
Maybe it should be pointed out that you probably won't convert someone by debating EOG but you can bounce ideas off others to see how well they hold up. I know I've learned a lot by debating and it may not convince anyone of anything but it helps educate, not only oneself but perhaps others as well.

This.
Rational_Thinker9119 Good to meet you.. I can't agree with you more!! Debating helps to educate!
The best way for me to learn has been first the Challenge/Question then doing homework to find answers!!

I find most of my answers from the Holy Catholic Church and scriptures! I post scriptures with the answers to questions people bring up!!!
I am older then dirt!!!!
Not many question I have not been asked, some time in my distant past!!

To argue with scriptures is not an argument with me!
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:01:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 9:34:20 PM, Rusty wrote:
At 7/4/2012 8:18:58 PM, phantom wrote:
You fill me with the urge to defecate.



3:52? Did I catch a reference?

You did indeed!
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)