Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[TagliatelliMonster]

What better evidence of God than God revealing Himself to us?

That is what you believe religiously.
Your religious beliefs aren't evidence of your religious beliefs.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

When you deny reason, why should I reason with you?

The limits of logic are a fun fringe element to philosophise about but in every day life it is as useful as General Relativity is over Newtonian mechanics.

Yeah, but that is fun, is not logic, reason and evidence. That is a feeling in you, so you are irrational just like me. Now report to the rational enforcers and get your brain fixed, so you stop being irrational.

So stop playing with me, because I can spot when you are not doing evidence and all that jazz. That is so for fun and useful, because for the demarcation of science and non-science, it belongs to non-science.

Remember I was trained by scientific skeptics and know when evidence doesn't apply. Your fun and useful is your opinion and I have a different one.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And yet it seems to we who believe, that God’s light burns deep in the soul of every man and woman; and that this is evident to all who choose to search honestly within themselves.

I find such statements to be some species of insulting. At least they are intellectually dishonest.

"if you search and believe you've found it, it is evidence / evident, but if you don't then it means you aren't honest".

Kind of like
"I am correct and if you don't believe that, it's because you are wrong"

It assumes an absolute certainty on your part. You have totally discarded the very real possibility that it's you who is incorrect. To the point that if someone doesn't agree, it means they are being "dishonest".

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Why?



I don't see how that follows.

If I could wager a guess, I would say Brian2 is saying a 'lasting meaning' to mean literally a long period of time. And if death is meaningless, never dying negates that, granting meaning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I could wager a guess, I would say Brian2 is saying a 'lasting meaning' to mean literally a long period of time. And if death is meaningless, never dying negates that, granting meaning.

That doesn't really answer my question.

 

[Brian2]

Why?

Because it goes on forever and those in it know the truth and what is lasting and truly valuable and what is meaningless. This is based on my belief in the Christian afterlife and not on a belief in reincarnation or any other form of afterlife.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

On the contrary, life becomes meaningless when it is everlasting. And the time we have here more valuable when we know there’s an end.

Exactly. Basic economic rule: value is inversely proportional to available supply. Thus, an infinite supply of anything, including life, renders it essentially valueless.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Groovy. So why be here ifn you is so above it all.

What's your goal with that question, and how did you reach the conclusion I'm claiming to be "so above it all"?

 

[Brian2]

That is what you believe religiously.
Your religious beliefs aren't evidence of your religious beliefs.

And your religious non beliefs aren't evidence for your religious non beliefs.
And science does not supply evidence for non belief.
If anything imo the more we find out the more evidence we have for God and so religious beliefs.
But people who accept only empirical evidence have no evidence either way because science gives none and they reject any other evidence there is.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because it goes on forever

That's just repeating the claim.

My question is: why is that meaningful as opposed to life being finite? What is it about everlasting life that gives it meaning as opposed to finite life?

and those in it know the truth and what is lasting and truly valuable and what is meaningless

That's not an explanation. That is instead just the equivalent of saying "it's obvious to people who believe it".

This is based on my belief in the Christian afterlife and not on a belief in reincarnation or any other form of afterlife.

Sounds about right. It's just a belief you have. But not something you can actually explain or justify.
It's just one of those things you "say".

At least, that's what it sounds like.

 

[Brian2]

If I could wager a guess, I would say Brian2 is saying a 'lasting meaning' to mean literally a long period of time. And if death is meaningless, never dying negates that, granting meaning.

Yes true and there is the bit about doing stuff in this life that is so meaningful that what we do has affects that last into the eternity to follow and does not end at death.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Exactly. Basic economic rule: value is inversely proportional to available supply. Thus, an infinite supply of anything, including life, renders it essentially valueless.

I have never known a day that I didn't have as much air as I could ever wish to breathe. That doesn't reduce the value I place on it.

The worst part of that economic rule is the eventual and intentional increase in value for profits through artificial scarcity. Not that I have a better system to suggest.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And your religious non beliefs aren't evidence for your religious non beliefs.

I don't require evidence for non-beliefs.

Do you require evidence for not believing in alien abductions or bigfoot or quetzalcoatl or the monsters under your bed or "gooblydockbloblo" or anything else ones imagination can produce?

Off course not.
Evidence is what you need to positively believe something.
Not believing X is what you do when there is no evidence to justify believing X.

So what you said there makes no sense at all and seems nothing but an attempt to dodge the point I made.

But people who accept only empirical evidence have no evidence either way because science gives none and they reject any other evidence there is.

What other evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes true and there is the bit about doing stuff in this life that is so meaningful that what we do has affects that last into the eternity to follow and does not end at death.

There are things that Julius Ceasar did which had lasting effect which persist to this day, 2000 years later.
The lasting effect of people's actions don't necessarily end at their deaths.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There can be little doubt that debates between an atheist {A} and a theist {T} can be both contentious and confusing -- as is clearly shown by this thread ...

{A} -- In my opinion, God is ill-defiled and unevidenced.
{T} -- afterlife ... afterlife ... afterlife ... afterlife ... afterlife ...

Oh well, it looks like @Evangelicalhumanist may be on to something.

 

[Brian2]

That's just repeating the claim.

My question is: why is that meaningful as opposed to life being finite? What is it about everlasting life that gives it meaning as opposed to finite life?

When we die all the meaning we gave to our life ends if there is no afterlife.
What is the point to gaining the whole world but losing our soul? None, it is meaningless.

That's not an explanation. That is instead just the equivalent of saying "it's obvious to people who believe it".

What I was saying was that those who gain eternal life (who end up there) will know the truth and what is truly important and what is not important.

Sounds about right. It's just a belief you have. But not something you can actually explain or justify.
It's just one of those things you "say".

At least, that's what it sounds like.

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."

If there is life after death then I am to be pitied and am avoiding some pleasures for nothing. But don't pity me because if life ends at death then both our lives are wasted and neither of us will know or care.
Without an afterlife, life is meaningless in the long run.

 

[Brian2]

I don't require evidence for non-beliefs.

Do you require evidence for not believing in alien abductions or bigfoot or quetzalcoatl or the monsters under your bed or "gooblydockbloblo" or anything else ones imagination can produce?

Off course not.
Evidence is what you need to positively believe something.
Not believing X is what you do when there is no evidence to justify believing X.

So what you said there makes no sense at all and seems nothing but an attempt to dodge the point I made.

I don't need empirical evidence for my religious beliefs. I have the evidence that you do not see as evidence.

What other evidence?

The non empirical evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

When we die all the meaning we gave to our life ends if there is no afterlife.

That's a vague statement. Can you elaborate? Perhaps with an example.

What is the point to gaining the whole world but losing our soul? None, it is meaningless.

Another vague abstract statement.

What I was saying was that those who gain eternal life (who end up there) will know the truth and what is truly important and what is not important.

This is yet another religious belief it seems to me. This also still doesn't explain what it is about an eternal life as opposed to a finite life that the first has meaning while the latter supposedly doesn't.

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."

If there is life after death then I am to be pitied and am avoiding some pleasures for nothing. But don't pity me because if life ends at death then both our lives are wasted and neither of us will know or care.

Sounds like pascal's wager, but again doesn't address my question.

Without an afterlife, life is meaningless in the long run.

You are again just repeating the claim that I am asking you to explain and justify.


I know, it's a hard question. I've asked theists this before when it came up. None was ever able to give a satisfactory answer.
It always turned out that it is just something that people "say".


Personally, I say the opposite... A story only has meaning if it has a beginning, middle and end.
I wouldn't bother to watch an everlasting movie. What would be the point?
To me, an everlasting movie / life sounds about as meaningless as it gets.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

There are things that Julius Ceasar did which had lasting effect which persist to this day, 2000 years later.
The lasting effect of people's actions don't necessarily end at their deaths.

In regard to duration, I would argue that the largest possible sample of finite time, would still be infinitely shorter in span than the most diminutive sample of infinite time.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

For what it's worth, I think the more interesting debate question might be ...

• Is the belief in preternatural agency and the belief in ontological naturalism equally as reasonable provisional views?

... after, of course, the arduous -- and likely futile -- debates on the meaning of 'belief' and 'reasonable.'