(June 17, 2014 at 9:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So the reasoning is always secondary.

No reasoning is devoid of reality. We couldn't understand anything without some frame of reference.

So what about questions of deity? Something we define with no way of establishing a hard link to physical reality. This requires pure reason. Science cannot be applied because it is out of the scientific realm. Rationalism applies.

Said atheists refuse to entertain rationalism to the exclusion of empiricism, and so deny one of the methods of discovery.

If there is a deity. Why would we define it with no link to reality. That is just silly to me. The only reason i see doing something like that is to bulster a personal opinion. "an all personal bullshit god" so to speak.

Deity is absolutely linked with reality. There just cannot be verifiable evidence given the nature of Deity.

Everything extant is hard evidence of its creator. Is that creator a single point or some other natural process.

Is that deity or natural process. To assume deity is merely adopting one point of view. I would argue that at least two points of view are possible. Scientific and religious. Scientific to discover physical process. Religious to discover meaning.

(June 13, 2014 at 11:22 pm)topher Wrote: So, I've recently been planning a basic strategy to use when debating with theists. There will never be a "one-size fits all" approach, obviously, but I know a lot of people have their own strategies that can engage any average believer. So, I'll run through my strategy, which consists of 3 questions, and I was hoping I could get some feedback from fellow atheists who may have heard good/terrible responses to these questions.

1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

Basically, do you believe what you do because you think it's true? Or just because it feels good? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever change your mind? What if you knew for a FACT that it wasn't true, would you still cling to the belief out of the comfort it gives you?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

Pretty basic, just simply; Do you understand how we come to understand something as truth? It's through evidence and evidence alone. We may be wrong about things sometimes, but science remains by far and away the single best method of coming to knowledge.

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

If the first two questions went very quickly, then obviously this one is going to take the largest amount of time to discuss. But it's rewarding if you can trap them in their own mind games. Obviously, they can not answer these questions the way a logical person would. If they care about the truth, then they must acknowledge that they require evidence, not faith. And if they accept that there is no evidence to support their claims, then they can't even explain to themselves why they believe in God.

Any changes I should make before I try these out? How do you guys tend to argue with a believer?

1. Some would say yes, some would say no.

2. A lie is determined by it's truth.

3. What evidence does science bring up proving spirits to be real?

(June 23, 2014 at 3:56 am)Knowledge of God Wrote: 1. Some would say yes, some would say no.

2. A lie is determined by it's truth.

3. What evidence does science bring up proving spirits to be real?

1. Those who say 'no' are the ones normal society need to be worried about.

2.

3. None.

(June 23, 2014 at 3:56 am)Knowledge of God Wrote: 1. Some would say yes, some would say no.

2. A lie is determined by it's truth.

3. What evidence does science bring up proving spirits to be real?

1. Those who would answer "no" have no cause to complain about being seated at the children's table.

2. You left out intent.

3. Nada.

(June 13, 2014 at 11:22 pm)topher Wrote: So, I've recently been planning a basic strategy to use when debating with theists. There will never be a "one-size fits all" approach, obviously, but I know a lot of people have their own strategies that can engage any average believer. So, I'll run through my strategy, which consists of 3 questions, and I was hoping I could get some feedback from fellow atheists who may have heard good/terrible responses to these questions.

1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

Basically, do you believe what you do because you think it's true? Or just because it feels good? Is there any amount of evidence that could ever change your mind? What if you knew for a FACT that it wasn't true, would you still cling to the belief out of the comfort it gives you?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

Pretty basic, just simply; Do you understand how we come to understand something as truth? It's through evidence and evidence alone. We may be wrong about things sometimes, but science remains by far and away the single best method of coming to knowledge.

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

If the first two questions went very quickly, then obviously this one is going to take the largest amount of time to discuss. But it's rewarding if you can trap them in their own mind games. Obviously, they can not answer these questions the way a logical person would. If they care about the truth, then they must acknowledge that they require evidence, not faith. And if they accept that there is no evidence to support their claims, then they can't even explain to themselves why they believe in God.

Any changes I should make before I try these out? How do you guys tend to argue with a believer?

1. It definitely matters to me whether or not my beliefs are true. If it could be proven to me that God doesn't exist, I feel certain I would stop believing. Honestly, I can't bring all the reasons why I believe together and write them down. I have had experiences where things went in a that they shouldn't have and I've recognized God in the process. Mostly though, I've opened myself up to him and he's shown himself to me; and he's promised in the scriptures that he wouldn't desert me. Knowing what I know now, I can't imagine being an atheist, but I am open to anything that would convince me differently.

2. We do gain knowledge of the truth from evidence and observation of the facts. I'm all for science and we've gained countless benefits from it. But we also gain knowledge through spiritual revelation. I don't think there is a single best method, but we should use all logical methods available to us. If we rely only on science, math, etc., we're shutting ourselves off from the complete truth. Most atheists limit themselves by refusing to consider supernatural answers.

3. There is plenty of evidence that my beliefs are true, but most atheists refuse to consider it. I've been been told that an atheist is not one who does not believe in God, but rather one who hasn't ever seen any proof of his existence. Why not keep an open mind then and we can discuss it? I'm open to proof that he doesn't exist. I have changed many of my opinions and ways of thinking during my time in this forum. If you want to refine your arguments that's fine, but try not to close your mind to supernatural evidence.

I'm open! Please, provide the evidence or the reasons.

Ive been trying to get theists to open up for quite a while but in vain.

(June 23, 2014 at 11:10 pm)Irrational Wrote: I'm open! Please, provide the evidence or the reasons.

Ive been trying to get theists to open up for quite a while but in vain.

Start with my reply to Question 1.

(June 23, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Lek Wrote:

(June 23, 2014 at 11:10 pm)Irrational Wrote: I'm open! Please, provide the evidence or the reasons.

Ive been trying to get theists to open up for quite a while but in vain.

Start with my reply to Question 1.

Ok, list the details I need to know. We can start with just one experience of yours.

(June 13, 2014 at 11:22 pm)topher Wrote: 1. Does it matter to you whether or not your beliefs are true?

2. Do you agree that truth is determined by evidence and observation of facts, and not through any other means?

3. Do you understand that there is no evidence to support the claim that your beliefs are true?

1) No, I don't because I don't believe we have access to absolute truth. I stick with the 'whatever works' philosophy. The hard problem of solipsism has to be ignored until somebody solves it. It won't be me. I can't even figure out how Yaweh knows He's not a brain in a vat.

2) Given the impossibility of 1) I'm only using evidence in a limited sense: that is to figure out 'whatever works.' I'm of the mind that the purpose of the universe is to diminish my suffering to a minimal level. Sometimes it involves using evidence but that's only pragmatism. Granted, I'd be upset (suffering) if I knew others were suffering (damn empathy) so I try to not look.

3) Sure, my beliefs are very probably not true. So? If they reduce my suffering, I'm ok with that.

Why is it that everybody thinks that what they think is true is true? Think?