Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 12:59 pm
(January 10, 2016 at 11:26 am)MysticKnight Wrote:
(January 10, 2016 at 11:20 am)Old Baby Wrote: 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.
You can't have rational dialogue about beliefs you hold when the beliefs themselves are irrational.
I did have dialogue with atheists when I was a believer, but that's different than what you're doing. I never expected atheists to validate my rationality. When you have a group that believes you have centered your beliefs around mythology, they're not going to acknowledge that there's anything rational about you.
At this point your only option is to bring forth the actual evidence that your beliefs are rational. We must all be able to look at your evidence and agree that it corroborates your faith. If we can't do that, and you insist that it's the atheists who are in denial, then you should be able to just walk away and dismiss us as beings living in denial. At that point we would no longer be worth your efforts to attempt rational dialogue.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm (This post was last modified: January 10, 2016 at 1:08 pm by Mystic.)
(January 10, 2016 at 12:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(January 10, 2016 at 12:35 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
The thing is Quran begins with describing the first characteristic of the those who guard (the mutaqeen), they believe in the unseen. If the path was not unseen, if humanity doesn't have any unseen station or path to traverse, if there was not unseen to journey in and witness, it would be a useless religion. Our humanistic values are good enough to live by and function in the material world.
So from a materialistic viewpoint, there is no reason. And if there is no promised Guide and leader that is alive today, then it's whole movement towards defeating oppression through Quran and love of the family of Mohammad, ceases to have reality.
It is only the catalyst towards justice through faith in the unseen Imam Mahdi. And it's only a useful path through believe in the unseen journey and it's guidance through that.
Salah without unseen and connection to it, is an empty ritual.
It only works if there is unseen, and you won't see any benefit without perception that human has unseen reality, and there is unseen world which you have forms in, and your states (actions) form part of that reality.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:12 pm
(January 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:
(January 10, 2016 at 12:41 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 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.
No, reason is not reality anymore than a dream or a novel is reality. You can for example prove various things about the nature of triangles as mathematicaly defined with math. But you can't prove the existence of a single triangle with math. Defining triangles does not cause them to exist anywhere but in our thoughts. As a thought, god exists. But unlike triangles he can't be found in the real world, but even then, I'm merely applying the label triangle to things already in the real world.. I could define a biangle as an object bounded by two straight lines. As a thought the biangle now exists. But I've got a long way to go if I intend to prove that one exists in the real world.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm
(January 10, 2016 at 1:12 pm)Jenny A Wrote:
(January 10, 2016 at 12:43 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: 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.
No, reason is not reality anymore than a dream or a novel is reality. You can for example prove various things about the nature of triangles as mathematicaly defined with math. But you can't prove the existence of a single triangle with math. Defining triangles does not cause them to exist anywhere but in our thoughts. As a thought, god exists. But unlike triangles he can't be found in the real world, but even then, I'm merely applying the label triangle to things already in the real world.. I could define a biangle as an object bounded by two straight lines. As a thought the biangle now exists. But I've got a long way to go if I intend to prove that one exists in the real world.
So how about ourselves? We are not defined by physical world. At most, we are created by a physical world (brain/body). Is it impossible to prove you exist to yourself?
If so, tell me which one of our five sense detects that "self"? Is it the eyes that see who you are. Is it the ears?
How do you detect love? What does it mean to you?
Justice, goodness, beauty is a detectable as perceiving myself exists. I see no reason to make an exception to them, the perception of myself actually depends on them existing.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm
(January 10, 2016 at 1:06 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:
(January 10, 2016 at 12:57 pm)Jenny A Wrote: 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.
The thing is Quran begins with describing the first characteristic of the those who guard (the mutaqeen), they believe in the unseen. If the path was not unseen, if humanity doesn't have any unseen station or path to traverse, if there was not unseen to journey in and witness, it would be a useless religion. Our humanistic values are good enough to live by and function in the material world.
So from a materialistic viewpoint, there is no reason. And if there is no promised Guide and leader that is alive today, then it's whole movement towards defeating oppression through Quran and love of the family of Mohammad, ceases to have reality.
It is only the catalyst towards justice through faith in the unseen Imam Mahdi. And it's only a useful path through believe in the unseen journey and it's guidance through that.
Salah without unseen and connection to it, is an empty ritual.
It only works if there is unseen, and you won't see any benefit without perception that human has unseen reality, and there is unseen world which you have forms in, and your states (actions) form part of that reality.
Then beyond your three dialogs, we really have nothing to discuss. The unseen and the nonexistent are much the same.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:25 pm (This post was last modified: January 10, 2016 at 1:26 pm by Mystic.)
(January 10, 2016 at 1:18 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Then beyond your three dialogs, we really have nothing to discuss. The unseen and the nonexistent are much the same.
I think we can disagree, but can have discussion whether or not religion is necessarily illogical or irrational. If we believe in the unseen absolute (God), we should believe in the unseen path to Him? Do you agree on that much? So suppose there was an unseen path, suppose there was..........sort of dialogue...is that useless to?
I think Islam becomes very rational if you believe in God. I think believing in God but no unseen path to traverse on is useless belief.
If you however believe in the unseen path, is not a connection to it possible? What would would those who whole path is nothing but that path that leads to God, what role would they play in guiding others to that path?
We can have dialogue.
If all comes down to prove the unseen or your religion is irrational...then yes, we can't have dialogue.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm
I blame it on cable news.
People are so focused on 'winning' every discussion, you can't have an actual discussion.
I think a lot of folks have their self-worth tied pretty heavily to the idea that their beliefs make them better than other people, and that's the purpose of many of these faux discussions.
The reality, of course, is that if this were 1957, we'd all likely be more religious than MK. And we'd probably be racist too. Our beliefs are primarily a coincidence of our times rather than some indication of superior intelligence.
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm (This post was last modified: January 10, 2016 at 1:29 pm by Homeless Nutter.)
(January 10, 2016 at 10:58 am)MysticKnight Wrote:
This is definitely not representative of all but to me is over all been summary of experience as far as the Theist/Atheistic debate goes.
Theist: I believe in God.
Atheist: Why?
Theist: Explains...
Atheist: That's personal and you can't prove that to us. It's useless to us and you are probably deluded.
Theist1: That's ok, I'm not here to convince you.
Atheist: If God was known to you, he would be known to us, if he existed he would be provable, can you even define God...can you even explain what you experienced....etc..etc...
Theist2: Explains but I also have arguments to prove belief in God is rational and think these arguments are strong reasons to believe in God.
Atheist: Your arguments are wrong....(some even say arguments are useless, we need evidence...physical evidence!!)
Theist2: I believe my arguments are right - they seem to be decisively true.
Atheist: There are no good arguments for God, you simply want to believe, etc, etc, preaching mode...
Theist2: let's discuss the arguments patiently and see.
Atheist: What argument, there is nothing to discuss, it's invalid, it's premises are just bare assertions etc etc...
Theist2: Eh, these arguments.....
Atheist: Invalid, unproven, bare assertion, etc etc....
Theist2: I don't think it's invalid due to this and that...it's not a bare assertion but etc etc...
Atheist: No it's.......
Theist3: I believe in my religion due to this and that.
Atheist: All religions are same, where is the proof, where is the evidence...why doesn't God talk to all of us..why didn't he this.
Theist3: Well..from my understanding..this and that...
Atheist: LOL excuses, just making excuses to believe in your religion.
Theist3: Let'd discuss the reasons and leave the issue of God on hold....
Atheist: Of course if you are going to justify your belief by your belief in God then..........every religion can claim the same thing about their religion, their god, etc...
Theist3: But these are the reasons I believe in this and they seem to imply this religion is unique in that this and that......and I believe in these reasons because of this and that.
Atheist: "Preach mode", religion is bad , it's this and that, we can do without it, etc. etc........
Theist3: I agree religion over all is bad because over all they are falsely taught but...
Atheist: Your religion too...this and that...
Theist3: But I believe if people only.......
Atheist: No true scottsman! + your God pathetic for not making sure people followed the message....etc etc...if it was clear this and that...
My question: how will we go past this..........
Is there a better way to have dialogue over this issue?
Sure, there is.
Theist: I believe in God.
Atheist: That's nice, but I ordered a cheeseburger.
Theist: I'm sorry, sir. Coming right up.
Atheist: Great, thanks.
THE END
"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." - George Bernard Shaw
RE: Mock dialogue of the Theist/Atheist discussion here.
January 10, 2016 at 1:30 pm
(January 10, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:
(January 10, 2016 at 10:58 am)MysticKnight Wrote:
This is definitely not representative of all but to me is over all been summary of experience as far as the Theist/Atheistic debate goes.
Theist: I believe in God.
Atheist: Why?
Theist: Explains...
Atheist: That's personal and you can't prove that to us. It's useless to us and you are probably deluded.
Theist: I'm sorry, sir. Coming right up.
Atheist: Great, thanks.
Theist1: That's ok, I'm not here to convince you.
Atheist: If God was known to you, he would be known to us, if he existed he would be provable, can you even define God...can you even explain what you experienced....etc..etc...
Theist2: Explains but I also have arguments to prove belief in God is rational and think these arguments are strong reasons to believe in God.
Atheist: Your arguments are wrong....(some even say arguments are useless, we need evidence...physical evidence!!)
Theist2: I believe my arguments are right - they seem to be decisively true.
Atheist: There are no good arguments for God, you simply want to believe, etc, etc, preaching mode...
Theist2: let's discuss the arguments patiently and see.
Atheist: What argument, there is nothing to discuss, it's invalid, it's premises are just bare assertions etc etc...
Theist2: Eh, these arguments.....
Atheist: Invalid, unproven, bare assertion, etc etc....
Theist2: I don't think it's invalid due to this and that...it's not a bare assertion but etc etc...
Atheist: No it's.......
Theist3: I believe in my religion due to this and that.
Atheist: All religions are same, where is the proof, where is the evidence...why doesn't God talk to all of us..why didn't he this.
Theist3: Well..from my understanding..this and that...
Atheist: LOL excuses, just making excuses to believe in your religion.
Theist3: Let'd discuss the reasons and leave the issue of God on hold....
Atheist: Of course if you are going to justify your belief by your belief in God then..........every religion can claim the same thing about their religion, their god, etc...
Theist3: But these are the reasons I believe in this and they seem to imply this religion is unique in that this and that......and I believe in these reasons because of this and that.
Atheist: "Preach mode", religion is bad , it's this and that, we can do without it, etc. etc........
Theist3: I agree religion over all is bad because over all they are falsely taught but...
Atheist: Your religion too...this and that...
Theist3: But I believe if people only.......
Atheist: No true scottsman! + your God pathetic for not making sure people followed the message....etc etc...if it was clear this and that...
My question: how will we go past this..........
Is there a better way to have dialogue over this issue?
Sure, there is.
Theist: I believe in God.
Atheist: That's nice, but I ordered a cheeseburger.
