How atheists"debate" religion

Author: Polytheist-Witch

Posts

Total: 98
#31
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
A: Where you do you get that information. 

T: Myths

A: Well aren't you are retard moron with no common sense, a murderer, child abuser and should have no right to your religion. 

T: OK. Or if you say what you should which is fuck you, your a violent child molesters who deserves to die. 
I would say the inconsistency is in their approach towards notions. Most atheists with whom I've had the experience of entering rigorous discussions over God will argue that God is either fiction, or God is spiritual but has no effect on the "real" world. This simply makes my approach easier. They lack a respect for ideas or even fiction so when I challenge them to substantiate that their arguments or their empirical observations extend beyond the notions on which they premise them, they can't. So to mimic your argument's construction, it would be like:

A: God is fiction, God is in your Head.

T(athias): Okay, is your material standards or the notions on which you base scientific observations not "fiction" or "in your head"?

A: Of course not, Science is an objective measure all phenomena and experience.

T(athias): But aren't concepts like Mathematics, Logic, Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc based on ideas or stuff "inside our heads"?

A: Well, yes, but... it's science, so...

T(athias): Okay, so let's use some science. Can you control for the part of experience or phenemona that is independent of your thoughts or you capacity to think?

A: Yeah, the Brain is responsible for...

T(athias): Aren't the functions of the Brain as you experience them subject to your concepts of it?

A:...

T(athias): Aren't you undermining your argument against the reality of an idea, when your experience of reality is primarily, chiefly, based on ideas?

A:...

(Some) Atheists lack respect for that which is inside one's head because they lack an appreciate for their own argument.
#32
Timid8967
Timid8967's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 459
2
2
2
Timid8967's avatar
Timid8967
2
2
2
-->
@zedvictor4
Religion is neither a question nor profound.

Religion is a response to a profound question.

Same question in....Same process...Variable output relative to conditioning.....Label if you will.
Ok. 

And you're very good at codswallop and attempting to insult.

But I just don't do insulted.
Did I attempt to insult you? My mistake.  Sorry.  I am pleased my mistake did not insult you. That is very big of you.  


I can discuss this sort of BS with you, all day long.
Why would you waste your time? 


And if you've read my stuff, you will see that I run with the idea of a GOD principle, but not one of the Arabian floaty about blokes.
I have to say I have not read much of your stuff.  I have seen some of your replies with Stephen and with PGA2.  Yet I can't label what I don't know.  Besides - you will note I don't call myself an atheist. I call myself a non-theist.  Perhaps you are a bit  like me?  

So how would you label me?
It is not up to me to label what you are. That is something you can do or someone can do. 

And stop being a jerk and discuss if you are serious.

Though I have my doubts.

How am I being a jerk? I presented my position which is that atheists tend to argue on the basis of a strawman god whom no one but the atheist believes in. OR rather does not believe in because they have seen no evidence for it.  I expressed that this is not really debating theology but rather is something else.  The question is what kind of god do theists believe in.  They say -so far as I can tell - that their god is not three pronged but rather is holy.   Isn't that a better place to start then? If we really want to debate their god, why don't we talk about holiness?  True it is almost as difficult to grasp as the omnicience or omnipotence or benevolence, but it fits truer to their picture of god. holiness seems to be able to express both mercy and punishment.  both grace and suffering. both love and hate.  

Do atheists avoid it because this picture is the one presented in the bible - but doesn't fit with their own strawman figure.  It is difficult to argue that christians believe in a god who is also loving but also in a god that hates eternally - if holiness is the overarching character point of god. Better to avoid holiness altogether. Keep the strawman going because it avoids integrity and honesty. 

But until I am able to understand holiness - which I clearly don't - then what is the point of throwing a strawman at christians and pretending it is theology?  


#33
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Timid8967
Theology as defined is debateable and questionable by all.....That is the nature of theology.

And accusations of  "strawman" is a tactic I tend not to employ.  Strawman has too much of a tendency to be it's own strawman.


Label wise, I prefer no labels, because labels tend to be specific and sticky.....I simply attempt to be realistic and apply common sense to contentious issues. From that stand point, I find theism both logical and illogical in it's development. As a naive creation hypothesis, deism and theism were probably inevitable, though the intricacies of  associated rhetoric and mythology are assumptive, and also have a tendency to develop into systems of social control.....A GOD created everything, so you must do as we say.

And holy is a specifically programmed database and operating system.....For the most part formatively developed, though there will be exceptions to this rule.
In short, some were/are conditioned to not question..... Whereas others, such as ourselves, were allowed to be sceptical.

For some unknown reason we are a sentient organic mass with a highly developed onboard computer....Why, is a big part the profound question that religion naively attempted to address....And still does.

I have no beliefs in regards to why, but I enjoy speculating and discussing.....And I do speculate and often suggest ,that perhaps religion is actually a good metaphor for the answer we are looking for, though over-dramatised with humanness.....Humans had and do have an inevitable tendency to create GODS in recognisable images, and then assume to know what their imaginary GODS are thinking.

#34
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
(Some) Atheists lack respect for that which is inside one's head because they lack an appreciate for their own argument. 
This is essentially just the nuclear argument. If your position cannot be substantiated then just blow up all knowledge so that you can claim the next persons argument is just as bad as yours.

We trust our observations to collect data about reality because we have no other choice. It’s a result of practical necessity. We assume the validity of logic because because  we have no other choice. Any attempt to validate or invalidate logic requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing its validity. There’s no way around that.

The fact that these concepts exist inside of our heads does not mean that anything else which takes place inside of our heads belongs on equal footing.
#35
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Uhuh-  see I was actually interested in your view here, but if you're just gonna lead with the strawman I suppose I was getting my hopes up for nothing. 
Topic's author
#36
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
This post is old and before I was banned. If you have a question you are free to ask. 
#37
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I wasn't aware that you had been banned. 

Hmm, in that case - how reliable do you generally take anecdotal evidence to be?
Topic's author
#38
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
When it comes to emotion or spiritual discussion I am not sure what else there is.  I have no problem with people not believing in gods due to lack of physical and/or scientific evidence. But having had my own spiritual experiences and having faith based on those I tend to be able to understand belief in other theists and give that emotional and/ or spiritual evidence weight. Just like I wouldn't argue someone saying they experienced love at first sight. 

Edit to add: I don't consider myth or sacred text to be evidence per se. I think it's a record of personal experience that others have found to be their experience. Text also is meant more to be a guide to worship for believer not evidence for non believer or non practioners.
#39
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Interesting enough - however - would you consider there to be a difference between identifying an emotion that an individual feels toward another, and the existence of an entity, most typically characterized as super-humanly powerful?
Topic's author
#40
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
Not necessarily. My own experiences have often been as real as with a living person and that bond to the deities I had them with, as well as when I had them with Jesus, is pretty strong.  I believe emotion is emotion. It's why we can become emotionally overwhelmed when experiencing art. 
#41
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Despite that intention, there is a difference, though perhaps unnoticeable - in one instance we are speaking of an emotional connection between two apparently living beings, in another, the connection is the claim of the being, there is a difference there. 

#42
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
This is essentially just the nuclear argument. If your position cannot be substantiated then just blow up all knowledge so that you can claim the next persons argument is just as bad as yours.
Nope--not even remotely true. The intention behind my statements was not to "blow up all knowledge" and claim that the atheist's argument is "as bad as" the theist's argument. My statements demonstrate the inconsistency in (some) atheist's rationale when imputing arguments against the reality of notions, especially when they measure their own experiences with notions.

We trust our observations to collect data about reality because we have no other choice.
"Trust" is inside your head.

It’s a result of practical necessity.
"Practical Necessity" is inside your head.

We assume the validity of logic because because  we have no other choice.
"Assumption" is inside your head.

Any attempt to validate or invalidate logic requires the usage of it, thereby presupposing its validity. There’s no way around that.
Logic's validity is contingent on the value placed on it. It connects supposed truths. Those values and suppositions are no less inside one's head.

The fact that these concepts exist inside of our heads does not mean that anything else which takes place inside of our heads belongs on equal footing.
"Disparity of notions" is inside your head.

My point is that "inside one's head" is not a consistent criticism employed by many atheists who levy arguments against Theism.


Topic's author
#43
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
On a  non parties end but on the persons end the emotional reaction/ attachment  is the same.  You combine that emotional attachment to more solid things like culture, tradition, politics, fame  or money you can get a building effect on those emotions.  But the average believer has a emotional bond with with their deity on some level. Some may have it less or more strongly than with with real people. I think when someone is called to be a servant of a god in one way or another there is certainly a stronger bond to do the gods work, even if the work leads them to do charity for other people. 
#44
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Right, and maybe it, because I'm viewing this as a "How, can anecdotal evidence be rationally convincing?" perspective - but whenever you have another person you identify any emotions for that person after you had already been presented the claim of their existence, that is to say - you seeing that person - but it seems most typical to me that this connection with deities is the claim of their existence - so - knowing that-  I don't see how personal experience can be convincing to an individual if they were to consider the facts of the situation. 

For example, parasocial relationships are built on perceptions and assumptions of some ambiguous influencer, creater, etc, but that relationship and that perception of the individual are usually in synch - therefore usually invalidating the actual existence of your perception of the individual. Essentially, whenever you cannot separate the connection from the claim of reality, how can you ever logically derive existence? I don't think you can, regardless of any foundational relationships. It seems, to me at least, to be begging the question.
Topic's author
#45
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't see how personal experience can be convincing to an individual if they were to consider the facts of the situation. 
Yet you have a world full of theists. 
#46
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Similarly, we live in a world full of people who believe Trump to be a good president, the mere fact that people are convinced of something does not mean that it is true. 
Topic's author
#47
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
True
#48
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
A: God is fiction, God is in your Head.
Logic's validity is contingent on the value placed on it. It connects supposed truths. Those values and suppositions are no less inside one's head.
 Fiction: a belief based in fantasy, not aligned with reality

Logic: the connection of assumed truths to form a conclusion

Are you equating these two things based on the fact that they are both “in our heads”? Cause that’s what I’ve gathered thus far.
#49
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Fiction: a belief based in fantasy, not aligned with reality

Logic: the connection of assumed truths to form a conclusion

Are you equating these two things based on the fact that they are both “in our heads”? Cause that’s what I’ve gathered thus far.
The distinctions you created are ultimately premised on your personal values. The equivalence I argue does not extend beyond the fact that both are inside your head. It is inconsistent to argue against that which is inside one's head while sustaining standards that are based on that which is inside one's head.

#50
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Sorry... none of that makes sense... except maybe the myths thing... but that is a good point. Athesit are still idiots bc every myth could be true, but the rest don't make sense. I think people are atheist bc they just hate what a certian religion is telling them they should be... and that is honorable. They take it to the next level, which i hate bc i have a lot of cool ideas about the afterlife and they turn away from it, but i think that's bc if the concede to me, they have to concede to some idiot religious person... so i get it
#51
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
It is inconsistent to argue against that which is inside one's head while sustaining standards that are based on that which is inside one's head.
Then your are being inconsistent right now. Unless you have a solution to solipsism everything you perceive is inside your head, so this seems like a bit of a pointless criticism.

8 days later

#52
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Then your are being inconsistent right now.
How so?

Unless you have a solution to solipsism everything you perceive is inside your head, so this seems like a bit of a pointless criticism.
I never claimed the capacity to "solve" solipsism. I pointed out the hypocrisy in rejecting God because he is allegedly based on a conception borne from "inside one's head" when the very standards which inform one's  rejection is based on conceptions borne "inside one's head." Now you can argue that there's no "equivalence" between the former and the latter, but that does not changed that these are still value-based.


#53
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
When someone says something is in your head they are merely saying that you are not basing your belief on anything that can be empirically demonstrated.

What does being “values based” have to do with anything?
#54
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
When someone says something is in your head they are merely saying that you are not basing your belief on anything that can be empirically demonstrated.

What does being “values based” have to do with anything?
No, they're stating that your standards of evaluation are different and/or undermine my standards of evaluation according to my standards of evaluation. The standards you accept are based on your values.

#55
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
So we’re back to the question I asked you a few posts ago... is adherence to the principals of logic merely a value that you assess as no better than the next person’s values?
#56
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
So we’re back to the question I asked you a few posts ago... is adherence to the principals of logic merely a value that you assess as no better than the next person’s values?
The answer to that question would reflect a personal value (as I've stated before) especially if our focus is "better." I personally prefer logic, but what does this mean ontologically?
#57
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
Then what is your point? You claim you’re not using the “nuclear method”, but that’s exactly what everything you have said amounts to.

I pointed out the hypocrisy in rejecting God because he is allegedly based on a conception borne from "inside one's head" when the very standards which inform one's  rejection is based on conceptions borne "inside one's head."
If the standard you are referring to are the principals of logic then this is an utterly pointless criticism and is just plain wrong. There is no hypocrisy in using logic to critique someone else’s conclusions, that’s the only way it can be done.

#58
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
Then what is your point?
My point is that it is inconsistent/hypocritical to levy a criticism on basis that it's "inside one's head," while adopting a standard that is based on that which is "inside one's head."

You claim you’re not using the “nuclear method”, but that’s exactly what everything you have said amounts to.
No. You are projecting. I'm not claiming that this is as  "good" or as "bad."

If the standard you are referring to are the principals of logic then this is an utterly pointless criticism and is just plain wrong.
Yes, I'm referring to the principles of logic.

There is no hypocrisy in using logic to critique someone else’s conclusions, that’s the only way it can be done.
You have imputed a non sequitur. I'm not arguing that it's hypocritical to use logic to critique someone else's conclusions. I'm arguing that it's hypocritical/inconsistent to critique something on the basis that "it's inside his head," while employing standards which are based on what's "inside your head." I don't know how much clearer that can be made. You seek to create a distinction in how the two are "evaluated" by repeating the "value" of empiricism, etc.


#59
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Athias
I'm arguing that it's hypocritical/inconsistent to critique something on the basis that "it's inside his head," while employing standards which are based on what's "inside your head.“
No one is using the phrase “inside ones head” the way you are. The phrase points to a belief held without supporting evidence. That is not the same thing as the use of logic itself, so there is no inconsistency here. You can’t change the meaning of what someone else is saying in order to argue that they are being hypocritical.

No, they're stating that your standards of evaluation are different and/or undermine my standards of evaluation according to my standards of evaluation.
So back to my original point, this is the nuclear method. Reduce logical differences to nothing more than a difference between subjective standards of evaluation, therefore everything is just a matter of values based opinion and thus no one has any ground to claim that their opinion is better than the next one.
#60
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@Double_R
No one is using the phrase “inside ones head” the way you are.
That is incorrect. I would know, since my reference was to atheists whom I've had the experience of debating.

The phrase points to a belief held without supporting evidence.
Evidence using a standard which assumes to substantiate that which lies outside one's head.

That is not the same thing as the use of logic itself, so there is no inconsistency here.
You have yet imputed a non sequitur. I'm not arguing that the use of logic itself is inconsistent.

You can’t change the meaning of what someone else is saying in order to argue that they are being hypocritical.
A typical atheist argument is rather simplistic. It's easy to reduce and deconstruct. I have to neither guess at nor change its meaning. For example, why would one require evidence in accordance to the standards you've endorsed? To inform a notion's consistency with assumptions of that which lies outside one's head? That's all still inside one's head.

So back to my original point, this is the nuclear method. Reduce logical differences to nothing more than a difference between subjective standards of evaluation, therefore everything is just a matter of values based opinion and thus no one has any ground to claim that their opinion is better than the next one.
Who's changing who's meaning now? My point would be akin to one's arguing that one's value statements are "objective" and criticizing another for his value statements being subjective, all while being oblivious to one's value statement being essentially subjective.

Knowledge is subjective--repetitive, I know . Why would one then suggest that "it all be blown up" because its subjective? One could still criticize the opinions of another on the grounds of his or her own values.