Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.

[Mr.wizard]

Atheists are not trying to prove anything, theists are making the claim of this god and atheists are asking for proof. If you want to reach a conclusion then prove god, if you cant then we will just continue not believing you.

[Esquilax]

You can't prove anything with pure reason, which is all Aristotle has.

Yet use reason to prove that you can't prove anything with pure reason?

Well, we could also use the scientific method and evidence to prove that. Lots of things demonstrate that reason alone isn't sufficient to prove objective existence.

[Catholic_Lady]

I would love for you to come to my party, MK. You are very nice and you never lose your cool/patience in a discussion no matter how heated the other side gets.

[Thumpalumpacus]

So in your view, three out of three religionists are extremely courteous to atheists online?

No. All three can be douche bags potentially or they can be composed and courteous. Also people should not always take advice or criticism as rude or non-courteous. It depends on how it's done.

The thing is  are we going anywhere? If Theists are deluded, they won't find out this way. If Atheists are missing something or should believe, they won't find out this way either.

So either dialogue is useless in this respect for majority of Theists and Atheist a like as far as this discussion goes (not on other issues like who is invited to my party which almost no one invited me  and things unrelated to this discussion ), it's leading no where...


There has to be change of attitude if we are going to reach a conclusion. A more patient humble approach to the issue on both sides.

Isn't it interesting that you chose the most flattering depictions for your theists, and the most unflattering for your atheists?

That's pretty sneaky. Perhaps rather than depict all atheists as rude cretins and all theists as angelic victims of atheist aggression, a more realistic set of caricatures would get your point across better. Right now you seem to be assigning blame to those horrible rude atheists, and giving your beatific theist brethren a pass. I'm not interested in discussing unbalanced and therefore unrealistic portrayls; I just wanted to point out the bias in your original post; it renders that post useless, to my mind.

[Mystic]

Yet use reason to prove that you can't prove anything with pure reason?

Well, we could also use the scientific method and evidence to prove that. Lots of things demonstrate that reason alone isn't sufficient to prove objective existence.

Yes you can't know everything through pure reason. That is different then to say you can't know/prove anything with pure reason.

[Mystic]

Isn't it interesting that you chose the most flattering depictions for your theists, and the most unflattering for your atheists?

That's pretty sneaky.  Perhaps rather than depict all atheists as rude cretins and all theists as angelic victims of atheist aggression, a more realistic set of caricatures would get your point across better. Right now you seem to be assigning blame to those horrible rude atheists, and giving your beatific theist brethren a pass.  I'm not interested in discussing unbalanced and therefore unrealistic portrayls; I just wanted to point out the bias in your original post; it renders that post useless, to my mind.

Theist1 was suppose to me when I first came here. I use to say I believe for reasons that I can only justify to myself and can't prove God. I even had a thread once saying "all logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart says otherwise".

Theist2 is me having a little courage to find arguments and believe in them and present them. 

Theist3 is me coming to religion.

I said Theist but I really meant me. The theist/atheist dialogue phases I been through.

But you are right, if it was a general implication, then it's unfair...a lot Theists here come with not much to dialogue and are rude.

But in all honesty.......I want a sincere dialogue over this issue. And my impression, is over all been this.

[Jenny A]

Well, we could also use the scientific method and evidence to prove that. Lots of things demonstrate that reason alone isn't sufficient to prove objective existence.

Yes you can't know everything through pure reason. That is different then to say you can't know/prove anything with pure reason.

True, but the more nuanced phrasing won't help you prove god: you can't prove anything about reality with pure reason. To prove anything about reality you must have data. Pure logical systems such as math and formal logic do not expand our knowledge of what is in the real world, though they are of great use in analyzing facts in the real world. Ultimately, any proof concerning real things must be based upon real things.

[Mystic]

Yes you can't know everything through pure reason. That is different then to say you can't know/prove anything with pure reason.

True, but the more nuanced phrasing won't help you prove god:  you can't prove anything about reality with pure reason.  To prove anything about reality you must have data. Pure logical systems such as math and formal logic do not expand our knowledge of what is in the real world, though they are of great use in analyzing facts in the real world.

I'm sorry, by reality, you mean God particularly? I think Aristotle did through pure reason. Refuting what is proven by reason by saying you can't prove anything about reality by pure reason is rather circular is it not? Reason is part of reality unless you are not real.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

When I was a believer, I never bothered trying to get nonbelievers to validate my reasons for believing.  I think you have to ask yourself why this is important to you.

Hmm....and you ended up leaving faith. On the other hand, dialogue with people of different faiths as well as Atheists, has lead me to stronger faith in my religion (Even though I left it for five years).

I feel this non-dialogue, I will just rely on my own reasoning/subjective experience, if there is a true religion is not the way God wanted us to go about it.

I think rational dialogue is the means to come to agreement. Not everyone can we expect to walk into the door of light and see everything he needs to see and that's it, leave it that, you either in or out.

Rather I believe we ought to have rational dialogue. But the reason why we disagreeing, is because are not going about this sincerely.

So the solution is a change of attitude towards dialogue.

OK, you believe in God.  So what?  List 10 things in which your belief has made you a better person than you normally would be without such belief.  What does praying five times a day get for you?  Has it made you more intelligent or just more superstitious?  How large will your pearl be in paradise?

[Jenny A]

Theist1 was suppose to me when I first came here. I use to say I believe for reasons that I can only justify to myself and can't prove God. I even had a thread once saying "all logic tells me God doesn't exist but my heart says otherwise".

Theist2 is me having a little courage to find arguments and believe in them and present them. 

Theist3 is me coming to religion.

I said Theist but I really meant me. The theist/atheist dialogue phases I been through.

But you are right, if it was a general implication, then it's unfair...a lot Theists here come with not much to dialogue and are rude.

But in all honesty.......I want a sincere dialogue over this issue. And my impression, is over all been this.

The problem for me is this: I don't mind theists who simply believe provided that they don't injure others with the practice of those beliefs. But if a theist insists on attempting to prove god there are two possible responses. One is to be patronizingly accepting: that's nice, good play with your toys. The other is to engage the argument which means explaining why what you have isn't proof.

Perhaps we could discuss what current benefits you get from beleif? I don't mean miracles or afterlife or other things you can't demonstrate, but ways, if any, that belief makes your life better.