Debate on the existence of god

[nightning]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

 

[Nihilen]

It's obvious which side is the winner (non believers), but the other side still cannot get over his defeat.


Bad losers.

BAD.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I agree. First of all, there is no way to know. Second, the debaters do not share any common assumptions, one of the minimum requirements for a productive debate. It's like the abortion debate. As long as one side considers a fetus a person and the other does not, debate is fruitless.

 

[placebo]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

It's incredible waste of time it seems. Thousands of years spent on it already and still ongoing.

But it's an important issue to a good amount of people--I mean, people kill for it, how is it not an important issue? Though you may believe neither side wins, there are people on sides who do want to 'win' and the issue is way beyond the debate of whether or not God exists.

 

[Anonymous]

Yeah, I gave up on it a while ago. However, debates on religion are different, as there is stuff to argue about there, such as logical inconsistencies. Although I gave up on doing that too, actually.

 

[nightning]

I agree. First of all, there is no way to know. Second, the debaters do not share any common assumptions, one of the minimum requirements for a productive debate. It's like the abortion debate. As long as one side considers a fetus a person and the other does not, debate is fruitless.

A good point. We can only have a discussion if there is a starting point of shared thinking. But it seems that when it comes to religion, or issues dealing with strong believes like abortion, people keep on arguing anyways despite knowing that there'll be no satisfactory conclusion. Does proving your believes are superior really matter so much? What does that mean anyways other than an ego boost? What justifies the effort?

It's incredible waste of time it seems. Thousands of years spent on it already and still ongoing.

But it's an important issue to a good amount of people--I mean, people kill for it, how is it not an important issue? Though you may believe neither side wins, there are people on sides who do want to 'win' and the issue is way beyond the debate of whether or not God exists.

Another good question. Thanks for bring it up, why do people kill for religion? I know in the past it's mostly due to misunderstanding. But nowadays? They can't claim ignorance, yet why do people feel their believes are superior and need to physically/verbally demonstrate such?

Yeah, I gave up on it a while ago. However, debates on religion are different, as there is stuff to argue about there, such as logical inconsistencies. Although I gave up on doing that too, actually.

Hmmm do most religions have logical inconsistencies? I'm not quite familiar with such...

 

[01011010]

Hmmm do most religions have logical inconsistencies? I'm not quite familiar with such...

Pharyngula: 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

 

[Kalach]

You know "Impossible is Nothing", the slogan?

It's one of those things that halfway gets to where a really good faith lies, except I don't know how to articulate it. Something about there being tests, and bigger tests and then there's the best test, the impossible. Take the other tests if you like, but here's the meaningful one...

Logically, the impossible is... impossible.

But, like, y'know: aim high, hit the middle; aim low, hit the ground... so aim at the impossible.

For symbolic purposes, it's stimulating.

And now we turn to the question of God. Sure, great, there isn't one, God, I mean, but still... faith will have some value for some reason. And spelling out the reason will look silly because you'll end up describing something pedestrian--like, "for Jimminy's sake, just love people, okay?"--when the purpose of the faith was not to be pedestrian, but to aim high.

Now don't go be all realist on me here, because realism itself is valueless without a particular faith, that reality can and will be appreciated. It can be gotten to be known.

I mean, no one appreciates reality. It's just what's real. People appreciate reality only if there's some particular value at work, and after a while they'll get to valuing the value too, and they'll end up with some kind of faith in some kind of perfection.

It's a jumble, but faith is meant to be: there's the thing, and then the value about the thing, and then the valued value about the thing, and it's all supposed to lie in the thing itself. It's meant to be a jumble, with the different layers adding different meanings to the other layers.


Maybe.


Anyway, it's supposed to mean that ruling out faith in God and debate about It's existence is one way of lessening the project of evaluating ourselves as... whatever we are.

A bit like saying, the Renaissance was, like, a couple hunnerd year ago now, something like, so what's with all the paintings lying around?

Or not.

Not really sure.

 

[Samurai Drifter]

Well, if you're going to go the "it's a waste of time" route, then really everything is a waste of time. We're just here killing time until we die and doing things that interest us.

Debates are entertaining, so might as well have them.

 

[Anonymous]

Hmmm do most religions have logical inconsistencies? I'm not quite familiar with such...

I like 01011010's link, but maybe logical inconsistencies was a poorly chosen phrase. What I meant it stuff like claims that a man walked on water, or that women originated from a man's rib, or that our ancestors may turn into bovine, or that certain behavior sends people to a place called hell after they die, etc etc.

 

[placebo]

Another good question. Thanks for bring it up, why do people kill for religion? I know in the past it's mostly due to misunderstanding. But nowadays? They can't claim ignorance, yet why do people feel their believes are superior and need to physically/verbally demonstrate such?

I can't personally explain why people kill for religion. I couldn't understand it myself. But as much as you'd like to believe people aren't ignorant, they are. Culture divides, religious war, I don't know it.. Actualy I'm just really too tired to bother right now. But they are good questions to ask, to become aware of the significance of what other people believe.

You know "Impossible is Nothing", the slogan?

It's one of those things that halfway gets to where a really good faith lies, except I don't know how to articulate it. Something about there being tests, and bigger tests and then there's the best test, the impossible. Take the other tests if you like, but here's the meaningful one...

Logically, the impossible is... impossible.

But, like, y'know: aim high, hit the middle; aim low, hit the ground... so aim at the impossible.

For symbolic purposes, it's stimulating.

And now we turn to the question of God. Sure, great, there isn't one, God, I mean, but still... faith will have some value for some reason. And spelling out the reason will look silly because you'll end up describing something pedestrian--like, "for Jimminy's sake, just love people, okay?"--when the purpose of the faith was not to be pedestrian, but to aim high.

Now don't go be all realist on me here, because realism itself is valueless without a particular faith, that reality can and will be appreciated. It can be gotten to be known.

I mean, no one appreciates reality. It's just what's real. People appreciate reality only if there's some particular value at work, and after a while they'll get to valuing the value too, and they'll end up with some kind of faith in some kind of perfection.

It's a jumble, but faith is meant to be: there's the thing, and then the value about the thing, and then the valued value about the thing, and it's all supposed to lie in the thing itself. It's meant to be a jumble, with the different layers adding different meanings to the other layers.


Maybe.


Anyway, it's supposed to mean that ruling out faith in God and debate about It's existence is one way of lessening the project of evaluating ourselves as... whatever we are.

A bit like saying, the Renaissance was, like, a couple hunnerd year ago now, something like, so what's with all the paintings lying around?

Or not.

Not really sure.

I like all this

 

[Amargith]

For me it's coz my gods are a source of inspiration to me. Rolemodels or guides if you will, who will teach you invaluable lessons about the journey of life if you pay attention.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Why have them?

I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?

Why debate anything? Debates on any topic rarely convince people. Generally people make up their mind and do not change it regardless of how convincing one side may seem. Instead each side rationalizes why their argument is better. Each individual is only convincing to themselves or anyone who already agrees with them.

Pharyngula: 34 Unconvincing Arguments for God

Ironically these are also 34 unconvincing arguments for atheism. What is most accurate is FWM's comment that different groups are operating under different assumptions. The explanation of why these arguments are unconvincing use assumptions that only atheists make.

In essense the article is an exercise of mental masturbation useful in convincing the people who already have a similar viewpoint.

 

[Fiver]

Why debate anything?

Because the experience of debating helps me to think through my position: is it logical? (if not the other person may help to point this out). Sometimes the other person has more information.

Who knows? I might change my mind.

Perhaps the problem is not with debating per se; the problem is entering into one-on-one debate with people whose minds are closed.

A public debate, such as the debate (using term loosely here) on Prop 8 actually informs people who had no idea there was an issue. Public debate does change the world. If not, I would be a serf as no one would have bothered to question the feudal system.

 

[Eileen]

Debate on existence of god is where thoughtful conversations about religion and faith stop. I do not engage in it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Because the experience of debating helps me to think through my position: is it logical? (if not the other person may help to point this out). Sometimes the other person has more information.

Who knows? I might change my mind.

Perhaps the problem is not with debating per se; the problem is entering into one-on-one debate with people whose minds are closed.

Basically what I think too.

I know for some people even this level of debate feels destructive, but I enjoy conversations where ideas can be impersonally challenged and we are all just putting things on the table for examination.

As soon as it starts to get personal, exasperating, or disdainful to other viewpoints (and I think we can sense that when it starts to happen), well, I would rather be gone.

 

[Mycroft]

The explanation of why these arguments are unconvincing use assumptions that only atheists make.

Such as?

 

[01011010]

The explanation of why these arguments are unconvincing use assumptions that only atheists make.

The fact that it's written by an Atheist, doesn't change the validity of the statements. Frankly, I find any affiliation irrelevant. The only point is, that it makes sense.

 

[Virtual ghost]

The reason why those debates don't make too much sense is that two sides are different in core. The things is that those two sides can't relate to each other and they don't fully understand what other side is saying.


1. Scientific side does not understand "God loves you thing" because entire thing does not make any sense.

2. Spiritual side does not understand complexity of scientific argument and it has a problem with impersonal approach or reducing the importance of humanity.


Real debate is impossble since those tow don't speak same language.

There are people that think that you can mix those two but that creates so much philosophical problems that this can't work from perspective of logic.


However I am on scientific side.

 

[Cimarron]

I don't understand, either, why people feel it's so important to prove to other people the existence or non-existence of deity. (unless the audience seeks that knowledge, I suppose) The heated arguments--usually fights, not arguments, as several people here have pointed out--do seem like a waste of effort and time.

This post is pretty much extraneous, but I didn't expect the OP to agree with me, so I went ahead with it.