Convincing in a believer vs. nonbeliever debate

[Sheldon]

Most of the time, humans don't know what they are talking about. Belief is the fundamental way for humans to get to a truth of any kind. It is so because humans lack the capability to reach truths by means of evidence. For example, covid-19 death tolls have been listed on a daily basis for more than 2 years now, that is, 2x365= 730 days. Which day's figure was ever made evident to you.

No not really, that seems like a false equivalence, since the assertions that the evidence is not demonstrated each time, is not the same as the evidence not existing. For example a scientific fact and theory like species evolution has a massive weight of objective evidence to support it, but demonstrating it all would be impractical. However denying it is not based on a lack of evidence, just bias in favour of creationism. There will be objective evidence that either will or will not confirm the deaths from Covid, death certificates as one example.

Scepticism and paranoia are not the same thing, and a healthy scepticism of claims, is not remotely the same as a denial of objective facts that one may find unpalatable.

 

[Sheldon]

In a nutshell and in today's world, you believe everything by putting faith in the credibility of the mass media to get to truths of any kind. You don't dig and examine the evidence. Instead, you are sitting home to get to the truths by means of BELIEF! Evidence belongs to the eyewitnesses whose number is very few.

Sorry but none of that seems correct, a belief is a conclusion you reach, it either is or is not supported by sufficient objective evidence. Witnessing something is evidence, but is a notoriously unreliable type of evidence, without a rigorous method of objectively verifying it. Any illusionist show will confirm how unreliable our senses can be.

 

[vulcanlogician]

@mikkel_the_dane & @vulcanlogician
Well, if there is a propensity for people to come to understanding "without evidence" to mean "false information" and thus result in a negative connotation...

I would propose that the philosophical use would be preferable. However, without being highly self-conscience of the context and syntax we use, the reader is the one who interprets the narratives we produce, not ourselves.

A philosopher wants to talk about "beliefs" in many different ways, not just their truth value or provability. One philosopher, AJ Ayer, uses the word belief in this way throughout his work, even though he thinks (like most atheists) that the only beliefs that should count as knowledge are empirically demonstrable ones.

Philosophers have separate categories for discussing questions like "What justifies a belief?" and "What makes a belief reasonable?" If you want to approach these questions with an open mind, which philosophers do, then you start by defining a belief as simply "something a person thinks is true." From there you can conclude something like "Beliefs based on evidence count as genuine knowledge, but beliefs NOT based on evidence do not." Using the philosophers definition doesn't prevent you from doing that.

As for the other question: what kind of understanding can you come to without evidence? Most philosophers think that genuine knowledge must be justified somehow. Evidence is the best kind of justification. But logical reasoning can allow you to figure things out without directly experiencing them. If you give me two angles of a right triangle, I can figure out the third.... intuitions might also fit into a special category of unevidenced knowledge. But I'm a little suspect of that notion.

 

[ppp]

Exactly, humans are primates, but humans are not all primates?

Just as Christians are theists, but they are not all theists.

Compton tries a little too hard.

 

[F1fan]

Non-believers claim to be end all of all truths,

No they don't. If anything they are well educated and understand the limitations of their knowledge. The more you learn the more you realize how much more there is to learn, so with the intellectual savvy of not being convinced religious claims are true comes a certain humility.

but with out the warmth of Fire there is no seeing the light.

I don't now what this is supposed to mean.

without belief there is nothing to reason its like wondering endlessly, without reason belief unfound.

We all have beliefs, Those well disciplined in reasoning understand to believe anything is likely true or possibly true it has to be 1. plausible, and 2. have credible evidence that compels reason to make a valid conclusion. Religions lack both both of these. So does Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster.

Court trials rely on the belief of jurors to consider evidence and convict or acquit. Humans have a huge problem in believing all sorts of false and weird things. Michael Shermer has written books examining why humans believe in weird and false things. Quite interesting.

Knowledge is nice and all, but without belief there is no perceiving the truth, because that is what belief is.

Yet belief is not certainty, so not truth. All belief is subject to human judgment and error of thought. So your claim here isn't accurate or consistent.

Out of curiosity, what belief is required to perceive truth?

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Rationalisation is the action of attempting to explain or justify behaviour or an attitude with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate. Whereas rationale is a set of reasons or a logical basis for a course of action or belief. One's rationale can include rationalisations, but they are not the same thing obviously, since a rationale can also be rational, whereas rationalisations are usually not rational.

I knew what (or at least thought) rationale was when I posted that question, it was meant rhetorically ...Then you irrationalized rationalizations for me...

¹"Generally, rationalizations are most effective when they are not recognized as rationalizations." This seems to agree with your assertion.
²"As psychologist Joshua Greene notes, “rationalization is the great enemy of moral progress.”" This one caught my attention, though unrelated... -These are both excerpts from the Utexas.edu site.-

¹With a couple examples I was able to understand the irrationality of rationalizations, which seems like a mad thing to understand...
²However, I would think only someone with a weak compass to begin with, would allow themself to perceive "excuses for accidents" rather than "faults to improve".

How irrational...

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

The 'Isms' themselves, are the answer.

tell me the belief system of theism that necessarily applies to all theists.

"Theism - The system/s of beliefs that G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions, to varying degrees, within the universe."

And the belief system of atheism that necessarily applies to all atheists.

"Atheism - The system/s of disbelief, to varying degrees, that a G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions within the universe."

Edit: How is that? Two Frankenstein specials cooked to order. Your monsters are ready, sir! *ding

 

[ppp]

New The 'Isms' themselves, are the answer.

Nonsense.

"Theism - The system/s of beliefs that G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions, to varying degrees, within the universe."

False.

"Atheism - The system/s of disbelief that a G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions, to varying degrees, within the universe."

False.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

I'd firstly like to venerate you and express my admiration of the ease with which you disposed of those strawmen you had me craft.

But! Lo and behold! The student quickly learns from the master and counterattacks! HiYAHH!!!

"Theism - The system/s of beliefs that G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions, to varying degrees, within the universe."

False.

Theism is too the belief of a deity or deities.

"Atheism - The system/s of disbelief, to varying degrees, that a G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions within the universe."

False.

Atheists don't believe in any gods.

 

[ppp]

I'd firstly like to venerate you and express my admiration of the ease with which you disposed of those strawmen you had me craft.

But! Lo and behold! The student quickly learns from the master and counterattacks! HiYAHH!!!





Theism is too the belief of a deity or deities.





Atheists don't believe in any gods.

First a straw man. Now you're moving the goal post. Next.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

First a straw man.

Ahah! But it was a strawman of your recipe and blueprints Dr. Frankenstein, my liege!

Now you're moving the goal post.

Igor learns from its master, Igor is proud! Igor gets a fish head!

Next.

Oh... This is why Igor is not master. I submit, I had no further stratagems. Live as the Sith, die as the Sith.

 

[Sheldon]

Non-believers claim to be end all of all truths,

I have not only never claimed this, I have literally never seen a single atheist claim it, so a spectacularly meaningless piece of hyperbole there.

with out the warmth of Fire there is no seeing the light.

Gibberish.

without belief there is nothing to reason its like wondering endlessly, without reason belief unfound.

More gibberish, and the grammar and spelling is making my teeth itch.

Knowledge is nice and all,

Another meaningless and silly platitude.

but without belief there is no perceiving the truth, because that is what belief is.

You know you can can Google word definitions right? I assume this means religious belief, and is just poorly written, if so it is hard to imagine a better example of a circular reasoning fallacy.

Here's a link to an explanation of such a fallacy in informal logic, so that if you want to, you can learn to avoid such poor or flawed and irrational claims in future, but that of course is up to you.

 

[Sheldon]

I knew what (or at least thought) rationale was when I posted that question, it was meant rhetorically ...Then you irrationalized rationalizations for me...

Yeah I can't offer a cogent response to made up words like irrationlized (sic) sorry?

"Theism - The system/s of beliefs that G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions, to varying degrees, within the universe."

So theism is not a system of beliefs then, as Policy suggested, it encompasses many belief systems.

"Atheism - The system/s of disbelief, to varying degrees, that a G(g)od/s were responsible for the creation and resulting interactions within the universe."

Not even close to what atheism means sorry.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

Yeah I can't offer a cogent response to made up words like irrationlized (sic) sorry?



So theism is not a system of beliefs then, as Policy suggested, it encompasses many belief systems.



Not even close to what atheism means sorry.

Atheism
noun

1. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Beats me... I guess I'll just keep believing made up things, while you stand above the rest of the rabble as the epitome of knowledge...













or... Definition of IRRATIONALIZE

 

[Sheldon]

Beats me... I guess I'll just keep believing made up things, while you stand above the rest of the rabble as the epitome of knowledge...
or... Definition of IRRATIONALIZE

My apologies for my error on the word irrationalise (I'll blam the colloquial spelling difference for my bungle. I can also now claim to have learned something new for today, which is great. However I didn't cause anything to seem irrational, I merely pointed out the difference between a rationale and rationalisation. The ad hominem is a bit weak tbh. I have experienced far worse, and let it bead up and roll off.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I have not only never claimed this, I have literally never seen a single atheist claim it, so a spectacularly meaningless piece of hyperbole there.



Gibberish.



More gibberish, and the grammar and spelling is making my teeth itch.



Another meaningless and silly platitude.



You know you can can Google word definitions right? I assume this means religious belief, and is just poorly written, if so it is hard to imagine a better example of a circular reasoning fallacy.

Here's a link to an explanation of such a fallacy in informal logic, so that if you want to, you can learn to avoid such poor or flawed and irrational claims in future, but that of course is up to you.

 

[Mark Charles Compton]

So theism is not a system of beliefs then, as Policy suggested, it encompasses many belief systems.

I would propose what you're ignoring is that 'theism' and in correlation 'atheism' entail systems or a collection of interconnecting components, from the cause of such a stance to the reasoning attained for defense of such a position.

I think an adherent of theism, or more specifically an individual who has concluded that there are supernatural beings or particularly a creator of the universe, arrived at that conclusion to explain or excuse a misunderstanding or contradiction they're faced with in their life's journey. Such narratives tend to be nuanced, containing more than one aspect or facet, and as such I would call them a 'system' of narratives.

It is my opinion, that one does not simply arrive at "God exists" without a narrative they came up with to explain or circumvent the countering points that holding such ideals are probable to expose. The creation of the universe in and of itself requires a collection of events or suppositions to propose a conclusive understanding of the mechanisms involved.

...Likewise, I would presume it to represent an equal and opposite set of counter-beliefs, for an individual to be inspired or provoked into refuting such a nuanced narrative of convictions. Not singular ideas for singular thinking minds, rather systems of beliefs for minds capable of a plethora of levels and modes of thought.

 

[Link]

Is it just me, or is convincing someone of something in a believer vs. nonbeliever debater generally not possible because:

Belief-claims aren't wrong or right to the believer.

To the nonbeliever, a claim should be wrong or right.

Belief-claims however, can only be proven moral or immoral, if that, or orthodox or heretical.

If it can be proven or disproven, it's not a belief at all.

You maybe right about most religions but not the correct one. The correct one not only proves everything about it, it has many layers of proofs that reinforce each other. And it takes reasoning and reflecting to see which is why per Quran only those who possess understanding remember through the Quran and Sunnah and no one else does.