• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
 

Audie

Veteran Member
You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
The q is why debate.
A: They have not gone away yet.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
From watching various debates one of the problems can be keeping both sides on topic. Matt Dillahunty debates quite often. He is a professional debater, he does so for a fee. One of his frequent complaints was that his opponent never covered the topic of the debate but they would debate their own favorite topic. When one has prepared for a specific topic someone not debating that topic can throw a wrench into the works.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
Your not important enough to focus on this issue... :D
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."

I don't know why you mention science and religion as if the debate between atheists and theists is a debate between science and religion. If the atheist in the debate is a believer in scientism or an empiricist it may end up as a religion vs science debate but scientism is a belief that is not atheism.

A short video about NOMA.

magisteria - Google Search
 

The Kilted Heathen

Crow FreyjasmaðR
The biggest problem that I have debating "Atheists" (commonly anti-theists) is that they only operate from a world view indicative of Christianity. Like this:
The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
I don't care how you live you're life. I'm never going to tell an atheist that they're "wasting their life". As well, I will laugh at the notion that I fuss about myths. So that argument, from either side, is absolutely non-applicable in any theological debate about my beliefs.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Human basics. No argument.

Legal precedence placed after the fact (maths) says no argument also.

No requirement for any type of human theist.

Legal its human requirement laws stated after theist human maths broke earths space laws sacrificed hurt life.

Entity before life is God earth rock...heavens...garden nature...animals.

Legal precedence to continue to live after the human NDE and after life presence was returned bio living harmed.

Sun space law time shifted all things via phenomena. The AI machine.

Colder metal man's machine attacked earth metal laws.

The teaching we don't need nor legally abide any theist whatsoever. Humans on earth.

Human life is human only no argument.

Legal precedence.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
You can't debate physical facts with someone who doesn't understand or accept science but the problem goes deeper.
Even if you only debate abstract things, you can't debate with someone who doesn't understand or accept logic.
 

stvdv

Veteran Member: I Share (not Debate) my POV
The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it
That proves this Theist has no clue
Don't take this Theist seriously

while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."
That proves this Atheist has no clue
Don't take this Atheist seriously
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
What you don't know is the same as saying I believe science by my man only say so is the only absolute order.

My science order I legalised as a man to state the order of God is any one thing.

No thing is exact. Not order.

Therefore the legal scientists said gods orders are the only science so never alter them. Holy science terminology. I philosiphise only.

On rock earth as I end my life as a human it is via decomposition. Composition is order. My composite body is human no argument to the contrary as I'm witnessed.

I end as bone dusts like rock. Proof I only belong on earth.

Is a human only science order review why my end of life is with God. In the heavens. As earth the throne is rock sitting in heavens.

I don't end my life above. The teaching. Reasoned. The immaculate body in space womb is eternal.

I'm only alive as it exists. Orders as said by human man in his own presence.

Absolute truth.

Then you have inventor man who argued what about allowing alchemy for invention mechanics themes not harming earth or life.

Such as steam mechanics slow motion mechanics for example.

And he was allowed.

Never change the laws position was about satanic nuclear science. As it is the destroyer theology of not God.

Give an inch said men..they take a Mile.

What happens when you don't abide your own law... because science men proved many own no moral control.

Proven by their visionary machinery types that attack life's biology. Thought upon just in individual men's minds.

Why the likes of Galileo proved he was contriving evils in design.

Man always knew the sun by term was only evil in law.
 

PearlSeeker

Well-Known Member
In every debate the theist claims there is evidence for God but at the end this evidence proves to be no evidence at all. For example a myth/legend can't be evidence for history.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You know, I recall Stephen Jay Gould's argument that religion and science are "non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA)," and therefore there is no profitable way to to argue one against the other. And I think this is true: science works from observation, hypothesis, experiment, test, review and revise. Nothing in science can be considered "dogmatically true," because any evidence that may possibly come along can refute it -- and this is expected.

Religion, on the other hand, depends upon observation and hypothesis -- but the similarity ends there. Stories are invented to explain the observations. The wind blows, I can't see a fan, therefore, there must be a god that causes the wind to blow. It is written, therefore it is true and infallible. That kind of thing.

I think something similar can happen in debates between theists and atheists, but it is a bit different -- but immensely important.

Please note: I am not talking about ordinary folks, religious or not, who don't care to debate, don't fuss about their peculiar dogma. Nothing I say here will change how they get on with their lives, and that's good. Instead, I'm talking about those theologians and philosophers, skeptics and purists who really focus on these issues -- as if they were somehow important.

And to those (among whom I include myself), I say this:

The theist basically tells the atheist, "you are giving up the most important part of your life -- the eternity of joy that comes after it ends," while the atheist tells the theist, "you have wasted the only life you will ever have fussing about a myth."

Yeah, but atheists are general more than just atheists. They have a whole worldview for which atheism is just one part. The same is true of theists or even religious people in general.

As categories in general non-religious or religious only tells you a general category factor about a human. It says nothing about the general worldview.
 
Top