The Problem with Debates About the Existence of God

marienbad · 30-03-2012 06:16PM

raah! wrote: »

It was probably naieve to think that the thread would be anything other than a circle jerk too.

It's amazing the things people say here, as though they are never wrong, or have never lost an argument with a person who is religious on the topic of whether or not god exists. Do you honestly think that you know more about the topic of religion, and have more arguments than every single religious person?

You might be helped in such erroneous estimations of entire groups of people if you did not so much focus on creationists and things like old women from the street. I don't base my estimation of atheism as a philosophical position on the constant contradictions people are trotting out on here. Different people are able to defend their positions at different levels.

The debates between people who watch youtube videos and people who watch slightly less youtube videos are not really worth paying attention too. For example, why would somebody take their time to refute bill o reilly's points? The answer is rather obvious, and it's this same motivating factor that drives 90% of this new atheism.

You don't need to know everything about every religion to disagree with their position. Atheism is the lack of belief in God of Gods, no more no less. It is a one size fits all point of view.

swampgas · 30-03-2012 06:33PM

raah! wrote: »

It's amazing the things people say here, as though they are never wrong, or have never lost an argument with a person who is religious on the topic of whether or not god exists. Do you honestly think that you know more about the topic of religion, and have more arguments than every single religious person?

Actually, what this thread is about is how difficult it is to have a debate about (say) the existence of god, as atheists & theists seem to have such different methods of debate. Almost every time I've ended up discussing religion with the religious, their arguments (IMO) stop being rational or coherent at some point - and it just goes round and round in circles after that.

Many of the ideas put forward as to why this is so are from an atheist perspective. Perhaps you'd like to comment from the theist side, assuming of course that you are a theist.

Do you find any pattern to the way atheists argue their corner? What do you find frustrating/annoying/illogical about atheist arguments?

raah! · 31-03-2012 05:10AM

swampgas wrote: »

Actually, what this thread is about is how difficult it is to have a debate about (say) the existence of god, as atheists & theists seem to have such different methods of debate. Almost every time I've ended up discussing religion with the religious, their arguments (IMO) stop being rational or coherent at some point - and it just goes round and round in circles after that.

The question is who were these people? Who are you seeking out to have debates with? Is it the type of bill o reilly? Perhaps people who aren't interested in the whole "Atheist/Theist" debate past time?

What does it mean if you can recite some spiel from facebook and they can't respond to it? It means they don't engage in that past-time.

Does it mean the position of theism is inconsistent? No, it means they can't properly defend their position. And as I've said, I've met many atheists who can't defend their position, nor can they give a proper criticism of theism. Their not being able to properly criticise theism doesn't mean that there are no legitimate criticisms of theism.

So the question is this, if you can debate a hundred old men not interested in debating their beliefs, and therefore less versed in defending them, does it mean anything if these people "lose the debate". No it doesn't. All that matters is that there are people who are able to defend these beliefs in a more sophisticated sense, and it's these people, and not people at parties, youtube comments or facebook that you should be dealing with.

Many of the ideas put forward as to why this is so are from an atheist perspective. Perhaps you'd like to comment from the theist side, assuming of course that you are a theist.

Do you find any pattern to the way atheists argue their corner? What do you find frustrating/annoying/illogical about atheist arguments?

There are patterns of course, but they can also be divided into those more philosophically well versed and those not. As to the latter, of course there are many things debatable, but more technical aspects are not worth getting into. For example if people are using words they don't understand, then all you can really do is tell them what the words mean.

What is most frustrating is an over emphasis on things like debates between idiots and television personalities.

BluntGuy · 31-03-2012 12:41PM

raah! wrote: »

The question is who were these people? Who are you seeking out to have debates with? Is it the type of bill o reilly? Perhaps people who aren't interested in the whole "Atheist/Theist" debate past time?

I've often heard this as a counter-argument presented against me when debating religion with acquaintances of mine. That I'm over-simplifying it, and that I should go and watch the debates and read the essays of well-versed theologians (assuming I haven't done already), as though I'm meant to be impressed by what is essentially the same set of ideas wrapped up in a comforting blanket of erudite rambling.

I would argue that these people also abandon rational, coherent arguments at some point. By logical necessity there are no coherent arguments for a god that interacts with humanity in the manner in which the Abrahamic faiths teach, and further still, no evidence for said god. Someone being able to wrap layers of theological bluster and verbose hand-waving around that, doesn't make that central issue suddenly go away. It doesn't matter what "level" the debate is allegedly at - the inherent problem with explaining this premise will manifest itself at some point during any debate, and unless the theist is intellectually honest, irrational defences and possibly accusations will at some point start flying out.

Sure I don't disagree that there are atheists out there who can't really argue their position coherently, but from my point of view, as there are really no convincing theistic arguments, the matter of how elegantly flawed reasoning is presented is moot. I don't see how it's possible to coherently argue an inherently incoherent position.

swampgas · 31-03-2012 04:15PM

raah! wrote: »

The question is who were these people? Who are you seeking out to have debates with? Is it the type of bill o reilly? Perhaps people who aren't interested in the whole "Atheist/Theist" debate past time?

I rarely, if ever, initiate a discussion on religion. However, sometimes it comes up in conversation, and if someone wants to discuss it, I go with it. The most common scenario is where someone has never had a chance to discuss religion with an atheist, and they ask me questions like "what about when you die?" and "how do you know right from wrong?" - really basic stuff, TBH. Quite often the discussion is interesting and enjoyable, but sometimes someone will try to convince me that I must be wrong - and this is where the problem starts. This is where logic is abandoned and faith is invoked and where anything I say that challenges the other persons certainties is shouted down or simply denied outright.

What does it mean if you can recite some spiel from facebook and they can't respond to it? It means they don't engage in that past-time.

Does it mean the position of theism is inconsistent? No, it means they can't properly defend their position. And as I've said, I've met many atheists who can't defend their position, nor can they give a proper criticism of theism. Their not being able to properly criticise theism doesn't mean that there are no legitimate criticisms of theism.

So the question is this, if you can debate a hundred old men not interested in debating their beliefs, and therefore less versed in defending them, does it mean anything if these people "lose the debate". No it doesn't. All that matters is that there are people who are able to defend these beliefs in a more sophisticated sense, and it's these people, and not people at parties, youtube comments or facebook that you should be dealing with.

I don't read facebook or youtube comments, and I'm way too old to be discussing religion at parties.

The fact is, most Irish people who consider themselves Catholic have never had their beliefs challenged, so it's not surprising that many of them cannot articulate a decent defence of what they profess to be their religion. That doesn't mean that their faith is well founded, only that they haven't ever bothered to think about it very hard, and simply take it for granted.

Another factor is that many, many people don't know much about thinking critically, or about debating in general. Nor are they familiar with logical fallacies, so any debate can often get bogged down at a very low level.

And, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I find that religious people are quite capable of considering multiple contradictory notions to be true, which (to my mind) is simply illogical and wrong. As soon as some contradiction of their religious belief is pointed out, the other person doesn't explain away the contradictions - they simply ignore them and talk about something else instead. The end result is not a debate at all, unfortunately.

raah! · 01-04-2012 12:11AM

I've often heard this as a counter-argument presented against me when debating religion with acquaintances of mine. That I'm over-simplifying it, and that I should go and watch the debates and read the essays of well-versed theologians (assuming I haven't done already), as though I'm meant to be impressed by what is essentially the same set of ideas wrapped up in a comforting blanket of erudite rambling.

I would argue that these people also abandon rational, coherent arguments at some point. By logical necessity there are no coherent arguments for a god that interacts with humanity in the manner in which the Abrahamic faiths teach, and further still, no evidence for said god. Someone being able to wrap layers of theological bluster and verbose hand-waving around that, doesn't make that central issue suddenly go away. It doesn't matter what "level" the debate is allegedly at - the inherent problem with explaining this premise will manifest itself at some point during any debate, and unless the theist is intellectually honest, irrational defences and possibly accusations will at some point start flying out.

Well there is a difference, and a rather large one between the different levels of debate. You can simply assert that theism is wrong of logical necessity, but I’m fairly certain that if you were to take your supposedly deductive arguments to one of these blustery theologians, they wouldn’t have too much trouble showing you that there might be some gaps in your logic. In fact, you could show them to me, and I could qualify the degree to which the words deductive or logical even apply to them. But that is off the topic of the thread. And it would be rather too ironic to derail the debate about how people derail debates about god with a debate about god.

I could give a few examples were theological bluster make an apparent contradiction go away. But I won’t bother. One is the childhood stuff of “if gods so omnipotent can he create a stone that even he can’t lift”. Now this is actually nonsense, and just stems from not understanding what omnipotent means.

So you can assert that the problems don’t go away, and I can assert that for the most part lower level arguments lose out or are shown to be fallacious by higher level more technical reasoning. We could draft up a series of examples I suppose.

Anyway, you are saying all these things like “inherent” “logical necessity”, but I have never been in an argument with any atheist who has shown me the inherent, or necessitated inconsistencies in the theist position. And I can rather comfortably say that the kind of irrefutable objective destruction of the theist position has not yet been achieved by even people who are able to reason past the first two lines of introduction.

Sure I don't disagree that there are atheists out there who can't really argue their position coherently, but from my point of view, as there are really no convincing theistic arguments, the matter of how elegantly flawed reasoning is presented is moot. I don't see how it's possible to coherently argue an inherently incoherent position.

My overall point is that the arguments are different, and that while some old women is completely and demonstrably incoherent, it may not be so for other people. If you have never met anyone who has been able to make a logically consistent argument for theism then you have quite frankly not “debated” anyone worth speaking to. It also seems to suggest that you don’t understand what the word logical means. It’s very simple to not contradict yourself, even if you are dealing with dragons and fairies, as you would say here.

Ah, so there was alot of unnecessary stuff said there, but if we can step by the assertions of the validity of this or that position, the important thing raised in these posts is that you are saying there is no difference between how theologians are wrong and how youtube commenters are wrong.

I would say this is demonstrably false, and false in every sphere of intellectual activity. For example somebody who says “dragons make planets orbit the sun” is (assuming the truth of the Newtonian model) objectively more wrong than somebody who says “gravity makes planets orbit the sun”. We cannot say they are all as right as each other because the final conclusion is that planets orbit the sun. Neither can we say that two people making different arguments for something that is in your opinion inherently false are equally wrong.

Therefore, you cannot infer upwards from incoherence of less capable debaters to that of more capable debaters, and this is, in my opinion, what you are doing. I don’t believe that you have shown every theistic philosophy to be inconsistent.

But also, this is not a debate about the existence of god, but rather a debate about the debates, and if you are just going to assume straight out that every theistic position is inconsistent, then it won’t get very far.

Turtwig · 01-04-2012 12:35AM

My simple rule :

No matter how good your logic or rhetoric is if your initial premises are wrong then you're wrong.

Debates are utterly pointless because they're not about communicating they're more about convincing others and being "right" yourself. It's the same old shallow tripe you hear from both sides at debates.

BluntGuy · 01-04-2012 02:16PM

raah! wrote: »

Well there is a difference, and a rather large one between the different levels of debate. You can simply assert that theism is wrong of logical necessity, but I’m fairly certain that if you were to take your supposedly deductive arguments to one of these blustery theologians, they wouldn’t have too much trouble showing you that there might be some gaps in your logic. In fact, you could show them to me, and I could qualify the degree to which the words deductive or logical even apply to them. But that is off the topic of the thread. And it would be rather too ironic to derail the debate about how people derail debates about god with a debate about god.

Sure, you can go from arguing about whether the spirit of Jesus helped Emma pass her exam to a detailed discussion of the problem of evil, but both debates will run into the same problem of trying to justify the central premises. Namely that (a) this "god" exists (b) this "god" has whatever qualities the person wishes to attribute to it - usually "all loving", "all powerful" etc.

I do not deny that a theologian's defence may provide a more robust challenging of a non-believer's knowledge, but I do not believe the argument itself is ultimately any more robust. When it comes down to it, we're still talking about beings which not only have no evidence for them, but in my view haven't even been adequately defined.

I could give a few examples were theological bluster make an apparent contradiction go away. But I won’t bother. One is the childhood stuff of “if gods so omnipotent can he create a stone that even he can’t lift”. Now this is actually nonsense, and just stems from not understanding what omnipotent means.

So you can assert that the problems don’t go away, and I can assert that for the most part lower level arguments lose out or are shown to be fallacious by higher level more technical reasoning. We could draft up a series of examples I suppose.

Well "absolute" power is meaningless, but if you define "omnipotent" another way by gradually diluting the term to exclude cases which cause logical anomalies such as that above, then yes it is possible to arrive at a logically-consistent definition of the term. However, once you begin having to do that to the other attributes that god is given, you find that you're not really saying very much about the god, and indeed you end up with a deity that's quite far removed from the one many people wish to believe in.

Anyway, you are saying all these things like “inherent” “logical necessity”, but I have never been in an argument with any atheist who has shown me the inherent, or necessitated inconsistencies in the theist position. And I can rather comfortably say that the kind of irrefutable objective destruction of the theist position has not yet been achieved by even people who are able to reason past the first two lines of introduction.

The failure to define what god actually is, as opposed to what he is not, would be my biggest objection to theism. But for the purpose of a discussion, one just has argue as though the term "god" has some kind of meaning.

Note though that my criticism in the last post applied specifically to the "Abrahamic" god. I do not think it's possible to argue no god could possibly ever exist. I cannot deny that there are numerous logically-consistent "deities" you could posit.

There is nothing, for example, stopping a very powerful being sitting in the corner of the universe who does not interact with humanity from existing. But (1) does this being deserve the title "god" (given it has no supernatural elements, seems not to care for humanity nor seems to be a necessary being), (2) why would you posit this being's existence?

My overall point is that the arguments are different, and that while some old women is completely and demonstrably incoherent, it may not be so for other people. If you have never met anyone who has been able to make a logically consistent argument for theism then you have quite frankly not “debated” anyone worth speaking to. It also seems to suggest that you don’t understand what the word logical means. It’s very simple to not contradict yourself, even if you are dealing with dragons and fairies, as you would say here.

There is nothing in anything I've said that suggests I don't understand what "logical" means. It should be noted though, that it is much easier not to get wrapped up in contradictions when you're (a) not trying to prove the existence of entities for which there is no evidence and (b) said entities have a clear definition.

More on the topic on hand however, my experience of debate does not tend to be with old ladies who were brought up in the Catholic faith from childhood. I have certainly had discussions with people who have a poor understanding of their religion and can't formulate arguments very well, but in the main my discussions tend to be with reasonably intelligent people.

Ah, so there was alot of unnecessary stuff said there, but if we can step by the assertions of the validity of this or that position, the important thing raised in these posts is that you are saying there is no difference between how theologians are wrong and how youtube commenters are wrong.

I would say this is demonstrably false, and false in every sphere of intellectual activity. For example somebody who says “dragons make planets orbit the sun” is (assuming the truth of the Newtonian model) objectively more wrong than somebody who says “gravity makes planets orbit the sun”. We cannot say they are all as right as each other because the final conclusion is that planets orbit the sun. Neither can we say that two people making different arguments for something that is in your opinion inherently false are equally wrong.

But you're arguing here about a conclusion that is correct being come to through either incorrect or correct means. I am arguing that the conclusion in question, that the Abrahamic deity (or deities that have similar attributes or interact with humanity in a similar fashion) can exist, is an incorrect one, no matter what premises you use. Even more crucially however, I also argue the conclusion that such a god does exist is an incorrect one. Accepting this, by necessity any line of reasoning regardless of whether the premises are correct is going to run into some flaw at some point. I would argue that flaw is where rational reasoning breaks down and we start going into hand-waving, or trying to bend logic, or special pleading or whatever have you. Yes, the form this takes will depend on who you're debating, the specifics of the god in question, what attributes we're talking about, whether it's a debate about whether such a god can or does exist, but that doesn't change the fundamental.

This doesn't mean however, that I don't respond to an argument as it comes. Any debate must be approached as a new debate, and the reasons given by the other side refuted as they are given rather than dismissing the argument off-hand. A debate in which if your logic is shown to be fallacious, you accept your own failing.

I should also say, that I would spend more time thinking out my arguments against someone well-versed in theology and philosophy than say for example, a 15 year old the internet. It also doesn't mean that a theologian or such would not be able to challenge an atheist on misconceptions they may carry. Poor arguments are hardly exclusive to theists. In my personal view however, given a debate with a well-informed atheist, the reasons above are generally why the debate tends to go awry.

Therefore, you cannot infer upwards from incoherence of less capable debaters to that of more capable debaters, and this is, in my opinion, what you are doing. I don’t believe that you have shown every theistic philosophy to be inconsistent.

I certainly haven't, and I was happy to clarify this all above. I'm also not inferring incoherence upwards from poor arguments, I'm deducing it from the fundamental attributes with which the Abrahamic deity is adorned. If in my view, it is impossible for a deity given such characteristics to exist, then of course all arguments for said deity are going to fail.

But also, this is not a debate about the existence of god, but rather a debate about the debates, and if you are just going to assume straight out that every theistic position is inconsistent, then it won’t get very far.

I'm not assuming anything and I think I explained adequately above my approach to debate. The fact is the vast majority of debates concern a god that is given some or all of the qualities of the Abrahamic god. I gave an example of a theistic argument that wouldn't be inconsistent, but let's be honest, how many theists are making something like that argument?

I didn't initially wish to type so much that wasn't on the topic of debates, but I felt there were points that deserved a response.

swampgas · 01-04-2012 03:12PM

raah! wrote: »

For example somebody who says “dragons make planets orbit the sun” is (assuming the truth of the Newtonian model) objectively more wrong than somebody who says “gravity makes planets orbit the sun”. We cannot say they are all as right as each other because the final conclusion is that planets orbit the sun. Neither can we say that two people making different arguments for something that is in your opinion inherently false are equally wrong.

Just to comment on this - when a scientists says that gravity is the reason that planets orbit the sun, he can back this up with theory and a mathematical description: F = M1 * M2 * G / r^2. What this means is that the scientific explanation allows us to explain why the moon goes around the earth, rather than around the sun the same way the earth does, and it also explains why planets nearer the sun orbit faster (in angular terms) than planets further out.

This is qualitatively a much more useful explanation than "dragons make it happen". It also allows us to predict (for example) what speed a spacecraft orbiting the moon at a certain altitude needs to have in order to maintain a stable orbit.

So I would disagree with your assertion that both theories are equally valid.

*Edit* Oops - I guess that was the point Raah was making, my mistake ...

Michael Nugent · 01-04-2012 07:01PM

I regularly take part in such debates, and I find them useful on two practical levels.

One, I will at times hear an interesting argument that I was until then unaware of, and I can adjust my thinking accordingly;

And two, regardless of the repetitious nature of many of the more formal debates, there are likely to be at least some people in the audience who have not yet heard some of the points being made.

I doubt if very many people change their philosophical worldviews based on any given debate, but either side can plant some seeds of ideas that people who are listening may remember later in a different context.

However frustrating such debates may seem at times, it is still better than the absence of debate.

raah! · 02-04-2012 03:02PM

BluntGuy wrote: »

Sure, you can go from arguing about whether the spirit of Jesus helped Emma pass her exam to a detailed discussion of the problem of evil, but both debates will run into the same problem of trying to justify the central premises. Namely that (a) this "god" exists (b) this "god" has whatever qualities the person wishes to attribute to it - usually "all loving", "all powerful" etc.

I do not deny that a theologian's defence may provide a more robust challenging of a non-believer's knowledge, but I do not believe the argument itself is ultimately any more robust. When it comes down to it, we're still talking about beings which not only have no evidence for them, but in my view haven't even been adequately defined.

Well what you are essentially saying here is that you are not a theist. You do not find the arguments in support ofr the basic beliefs of theism to be convincing. This doesn't make theism inconsistent.

Well "absolute" power is meaningless, but if you define "omnipotent" another way by gradually diluting the term to exclude cases which cause logical anomalies such as that above, then yes it is possible to arrive at a logically-consistent definition of the term. However, once you begin having to do that to the other attributes that god is given, you find that you're not really saying very much about the god, and indeed you end up with a deity that's quite far removed from the one many people wish to believe in.

There is no gradual dilution, just the one statement that "omnipotent means he can do anything logically possible", which is pretty much what it has always meant. The second argument is the commonly encountered philosophers god is not regular god, but I don't think this thread is really about that.

The failure to define what god actually is, as opposed to what he is not, would be my biggest objection to theism. But for the purpose of a discussion, one just has argue as though the term "god" has some kind of meaning.

Note though that my criticism in the last post applied specifically to the "Abrahamic" god. I do not think it's possible to argue no god could possibly ever exist. I cannot deny that there are numerous logically-consistent "deities" you could posit.

There is nothing, for example, stopping a very powerful being sitting in the corner of the universe who does not interact with humanity from existing. But (1) does this being deserve the title "god" (given it has no supernatural elements, seems not to care for humanity nor seems to be a necessary being), (2) why would you posit this being's existence?

Yould modify the terms of that and say that it does this that and the other to people, like make Emma pass her exam, and there would still be no logical inconsistency. Something being unlikely does not make it illogical or inconsistent.

There is nothing in anything I've said that suggests I don't understand what "logical" means. It should be noted though, that it is much easier not to get wrapped up in contradictions when you're (a) not trying to prove the existence of entities for which there is no evidence and (b) said entities have a clear definition.

Well, what suggested that to me is that you have gone on about how inconsistent and illogical theism is, but you have then went on to list your main problems with it, none of which are problems to do with the inherent consistency of the position. But there's no real need for us to get in to this, these things are beside the main point, as you say below, and so I'll treat the last part as the most important.

And again, not having evidence does not constitute logical inconsistency, and neither does not having a clear definition.

But you're arguing here about a conclusion that is correct being come to through either incorrect or correct means. I am arguing that the conclusion in question, that the Abrahamic deity (or deities that have similar attributes or interact with humanity in a similar fashion) can exist, is an incorrect one, no matter what premises you use. Even more crucially however, I also argue the conclusion that such a god does exist is an incorrect one. Accepting this, by necessity any line of reasoning regardless of whether the premises are correct is going to run into some flaw at some point.

It sounds awfully like you are just assuming that the conclusion is false, and then saying that every argument for this false conclusion must by necessity be false? If this was your argument for why you are not a theist it would be dreadfully circular. If this is your argument for why there is no difference between two different kinds of reasonign then it's not really saying anything.

You are just saying that theism is wrong, and that they all have to be wrong. This doesn't change the fact that some people are more wrong than others, which was actually the point in question.

I would argue that flaw is where rational reasoning breaks down and we start going into hand-waving, or trying to bend logic, or special pleading or whatever have you. Yes, the form this takes will depend on who you're debating, the specifics of the god in question, what attributes we're talking about, whether it's a debate about whether such a god can or does exist, but that doesn't change the fundamental.

This doesn't mean however, that I don't respond to an argument as it comes. Any debate must be approached as a new debate, and the reasons given by the other side refuted as they are given rather than dismissing the argument off-hand. A debate in which if your logic is shown to be fallacious, you accept your own failing.

So again you are saying that all theism is wrong, and that because of this you can assume the person making the argument will make some logical mistake at sometime. Even if all theism was wrong, that doesn't necessarily mean it's logically inconsistent.

I should also say, that I would spend more time thinking out my arguments against someone well-versed in theology and philosophy than say for example, a 15 year old the internet. It also doesn't mean that a theologian or such would not be able to challenge an atheist on misconceptions they may carry. Poor arguments are hardly exclusive to theists. In my personal view however, given a debate with a well-informed atheist, the reasons above are generally why the debate tends to go awry.

I certainly haven't, and I was happy to clarify this all above. I'm also not inferring incoherence upwards from poor arguments, I'm deducing it from the fundamental attributes with which the Abrahamic deity is adorned. If in my view, it is impossible for a deity given such characteristics to exist, then of course all arguments for said deity are going to fail.

Well I'm sure most theists will disagree with you. But if this is your view you should argue the inconsistency of those characteristics, and not anything up ahead of them. As to this being an argument for why the debates go wrong, it's rather biased.

I could easily just respond with "well atheists, are wrong, and therefore, any of their arguments will be wrong, and that's what goes wrong with the debates".

I'm not assuming anything and I think I explained adequately above my approach to debate. The fact is the vast majority of debates concern a god that is given some or all of the qualities of the Abrahamic god. I gave an example of a theistic argument that wouldn't be inconsistent, but let's be honest, how many theists are making something like that argument?

What you assumed was that theists were wrong in a debate about the arguments. I'm sure that that's a fine assumption to make an a forum of atheists, but if the topic of debate is "why the debates are difficult" then an argument like that paraphrased above is not giong to be very helpful.

And your second point is again the argument of "god of philosophers etc." . I disagree with this, so do most theists.

I didn't initially wish to type so much that wasn't on the topic of debates, but I felt there were points that deserved a response.

Yes I guess it would be difficult to fully discuss this unless we each knew each others responses to all of those problems listed above.

raah! · 02-04-2012 03:08PM

swampgas wrote: »

I rarely, if ever, initiate a discussion on religion. However, sometimes it comes up in conversation, and if someone wants to discuss it, I go with it. The most common scenario is where someone has never had a chance to discuss religion with an atheist, and they ask me questions like "what about when you die?" and "how do you know right from wrong?" - really basic stuff, TBH. Quite often the discussion is interesting and enjoyable, but sometimes someone will try to convince me that I must be wrong - and this is where the problem starts. This is where logic is abandoned and faith is invoked and where anything I say that challenges the other persons certainties is shouted down or simply denied outright.

Well that sort of response certainly depends on the type of person you talk to. I can tell you I've had similar experiences speaking with atheists.
And I've had similar responses speaking with theists, and I had similar experiences talking with dedicated socialists.

The fact is, most Irish people who consider themselves Catholic have never had their beliefs challenged, so it's not surprising that many of them cannot articulate a decent defence of what they profess to be their religion. That doesn't mean that their faith is well founded, only that they haven't ever bothered to think about it very hard, and simply take it for granted.

Another factor is that many, many people don't know much about thinking critically, or about debating in general. Nor are they familiar with logical fallacies, so any debate can often get bogged down at a very low level.

And, as I alluded to in an earlier post, I find that religious people are quite capable of considering multiple contradictory notions to be true, which (to my mind) is simply illogical and wrong. As soon as some contradiction of their religious belief is pointed out, the other person doesn't explain away the contradictions - they simply ignore them and talk about something else instead. The end result is not a debate at all, unfortunately.

Again I would say that whether or not you get this response depends on who you are talking to. If you think that there are no religious people able respond to arguments properly, then all I can say is that that is empirically wrong, and that you should perhaps pay less attention to those atheists sites which tell you all you need to know about religious people.

For example, you read my previous post which you quoted and responded to as indicating I had a poor knowledge of science, even though you had to interpret it as saying the opposite to what it said to do that. Do you think perhaps that this serves as evidence that you do not treat this debate in an altogether unbiased fashion?

Andrewf20 · 04-04-2012 09:29PM

The debates seem to go along well until someone, either athiest or believer posts a comment or reply in an antagonistic or "what the hell are you talking about?!" way setting off a wave of anger filled posts back and forth. Once that wobbly wheel starts rolling, its hard to stop.

dj357 · 04-04-2012 09:51PM

My impression is it boils down to "we have no reliable evidence" vs. "I have faith" and that is when the conversation dies

The Problem with Debates About the Existence of God

Comments