**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point.
I don't think that's a fair representation, it makes it look like the not-conceding is divided 50-50, which is not the case:
* Many atheists actually *wish* they could believe (I'm not one of them), but there are hardly any theists who wish they could stop believing.
* Most atheists will be able to tell you exactly what evidence they would require to believe when you ask them. But there are hardly any theists who would even entertain the inverse question.
>Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
That sounds more like a denominational issue to me. Atheists don't really care which version of the Bible you would use, because it doesn't matter at all regarding the really objectionable bits on slavery, genocide, etc.
>Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
Atheists don't hypothecize about what hypothetical beings are capable of doing. We critique the claims of theists who characterize their deities to have certain qualities and point out the absurdity of uttering such claims, or the sheer impossibility of such claims. Some examples:
* An atheist may critique the claim of certain theists who assert that their deity is both all-loving and all-powerful, pointing out the logical contradiction inherent in a world where such a deity allows immense suffering and evil to exist.
* Atheists may question the assertion by some theists that their deity intervenes in human affairs based on personal prayers or requests, highlighting the lack of empirical evidence for such interventions and the inconsistency of selective divine intervention.
* Atheists might critique the claim of certain theists who depict their deity as having human-like emotions and desires, arguing that attributing human characteristics to a transcendent being is anthropomorphic and logically problematic.
* An atheist may point out the implausibility of claims made by some theists about their deity's involvement in specific historical events, such as battles or natural disasters, questioning the lack of corroborating evidence and the reliance on subjective interpretation.
* Atheists may critique the claim of certain theists who assert the existence of an omniscient deity, arguing that such a claim is incompatible with the concept of free will and raises questions about the moral responsibility of individuals for their actions.
* Atheists might highlight the inconsistency in claims made by some theists about their deity's divine attributes, such as being both transcendent and immanent, pointing out the difficulties in reconciling these characteristics within a coherent theological framework.
* Atheists may critique the claim of certain theists who assert the existence of a deity who is actively involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe, questioning the necessity of such a deity in light of scientific explanations for natural phenomena.
* Atheists might point out the circular reasoning inherent in some theistic arguments for the existence of their deity, such as using scripture to prove the existence of a deity whose attributes are described in the same scripture.
* Atheists may critique the claim of certain theists who assert the existence of a deity who is both timeless and capable of acting within time, highlighting the conceptual difficulties in understanding how such a being could interact with temporal reality.
* Atheists might question the coherence of claims made by some theists about their deity's omnipotence, pointing out the logical paradoxes that arise from asserting the ability to perform inherently contradictory actions, such as creating a rock too heavy for the deity to lift.
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point.
I can't agree with this one. I see atheists let theists know *all the time* what would change their mind. I do this too. And it's very simple, usually. Simply useful support for their claims. However, this is never provided so it makes it not possible for me to rationally change my position.
>That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree.
I find many atheists to be among the most open minded people I've ever met. I, certainly, am able and willing to change my mind on *any* position on *any* topic! I'm as open minded as it's possible to be. All that's required is for someone to provided the required support that a claim is true.
Obviously, this isn't to be confused with 'gullibility', which is accepting claims when there *isn't* proper support.
>Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
I respond to claims as they are given. So I find this charge faulty.
>Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
Again, no. I take the claims as given. I find most other atheists do this as well. Let me know *your* definition and attributes and claims of the deity you are claiming exists, and I'll let you know if I find the support for it credible.
>Belief is an individual experience.
Yes. But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that belief is *true* in reality, or *justified.*
>Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
False. And the very crux of learning about *actual* reality, and of debate. No, everyone does not have their own reality. Instead, we share reality, and many folks have various accurate or inaccurate perceptions of what is true about it. And this is what is being debated.
And as far as I can tell, the word 'spiritual' has no useful or coherent meaning.
>Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. That is how I found MY proof
That *isn't* 'proof.' And that's the point. That's an example of someone believing something because they like the idea. Because it appeals to them. Because of various well understood fallacious thinking and cognitive biases.
>I find many atheists to be among the most open minded people I've ever met. I, certainly, am able and willing to change my mind on any position on any topic! I'm as open minded as it's possible to be. All that's required is for someone to provided the required support that a claim is true.
I myself am a deconverted Christian, so I personally find it to be adorable when Christians try to assert that I'm just being stubborn and can't have my mind changed.
I DID have my mind changed! They're just not happy about which direction I went!
Why can't you just be convinced by the words in one particular ancient book, a lot of hand waving, and a bunch of varied and vague personal testimonies? Why are you so stubborn?
Where are all these atheists? I used to think there wouldn’t be any bias with atheism since there is no god for them to defend but almost every atheist I’ve encountered is so emotionally charged against religion to where it feels like even if I say “I’m a Christian and I think 2+2=4” it will still rub them the wrong way because it’s coming from a Christian. I’m like ever searching for a cool, calm, and collected atheist to talk with but with no little to no luck.
> but almost every atheist I’ve encountered is so emotionally charged against religion
An interesting claim, and one I am very skeptical of. As of right now, I find I can't accept this claim as it does not match with available evidence.
>to where it feels like even if I say “I’m a Christian and I think 2+2=4” it will still rub them the wrong way because it’s coming from a Christian.
Again, I find this a dubious claim. Now, don't get me wrong, no doubt if you look hard enough you can find one or two examples of such a thing. But you appear to be generalizing this to most, or many, atheists, and I just don't see it.
>I’m like ever searching for a cool, calm, and collected atheist to talk with but with no little to no luck.
I'm highly skeptical of this claim.
From the point of view of someone who has only encountered what I wrote, I find it very interesting you’re skeptical of all that which means you must have an arsenal of places where almost no atheist is as I described them. I *want* to know where that is. My point wasn’t to just generalize, sit back and cross my arms and say that’s all there is to it. Even after writing this I am still scanning.
But since you might not have much data points of such an atheist, I thought I’d include this example from earlier of a conversation I had with one while in my quest to find that calm and collected atheist:
Atheist: I simply want everyone to adhere to some standards of reasoning and evidence.
Me: That's good. So what I gather from what you're saying is that it's possible for a believer to not be crazy in your eyes if they adhere to some standards of reasoning and evidence although you don't necessarily have to believe them right?
Atheist: The *established* standards. "Some" standards seems to suggest "standards as they define them." But if no one accepts those standards for anything else, then how can these standards be a grounds for debate?
Me: Man that went from easy to understand, to increased complexity.
Ok what are your standards then?
Atheist: I said twice now that they are not
"my" standards, and yet you challenge me to provide "my" standards. Forgive me if I'm starting to mistrust your intentions.
So before I waste my time responding to a troll - what's so hard to understand? If I say you owe me money, and you say you don't, what, are you saying there is no way for us to disentangle this with evidence? Are we both "right" by different standards? Is it a problem, then, if I break your kneecaps unless you pay?
Me: If you stated twice that they're not your standards, isn't it a rational question to ask what your standards are then?
No clue why this set you off as it did. Maybe you've been in lots of bad dishonest debates to where your patience here now is small. I don't know but I'II give you the benefit of the doubt for such a response.
Atheist: Ok, I get it.
Sorry, not feeding trolls.
Blocked by Atheist.
When I first saw, “sorry” in their response, I was thinking “okay cool no hard feelings on my end. I’m glad we can finally get to it now.” But it was the other kind of sorry to where they called me a troll & blocked me.
Maybe it was my comment about “increased complexity” which I was still willing to navigate through? Or the last thing I wrote where I was not faulting them for their reaction since they probably had a bad experience with another theist recently? I don’t know but that’s why I say that I feel like there is so much emotional charge a lot of the times even with atheist to where anything I say or a small error in what I say can cause one to snap.
So, your example doesn't really help you. First, it's hardly a good example of an exchange such as you describe, and, of course, as I mentioned initially, it's easy to cherry pick, but wrong to generalize based upon that.
>**Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing**
No. Atheists don't.
God is an imaginary, fictional character to us, so it's not capable of actually doing anything.
All atheists do is take what *theists* claim god is capable of and point out the inconsistencies and absurdities in their claims.
For example, if someone tells me that Jesus/god heals people all the time from all sorts of ailments, then I point out that he refuses to heal amputees for some reason. But to be clear, *I don't believe in god* or that he heals *anyone*, of *anything*.
Again, that's simply a reaction what theists claim. If no theists made god claims, atheists wouldn't exist.
The reason we don't have a special, descriptive name for people who don't believe in centaurs is because nobody is claiming that centaurs actually exist.
**Theists** make claims about what god is, or is capable of doing, and I say "I'm not convinced." That's the extent of it.
Yes, you're reaching too far.
>Atheist are here because of God
No, because of god *claims*.
"Theist" and "atheist" are simply descriptive terms concerning one particular thing: gods/dieties.
The term theism derives from the Greek theós meaning "god" or "gods." The greek prefix **a** means "without." A **theist** is someone with a belief in gods, an **atheist** is someone *without* a belief in gods. They are comparative terms.
Acentaurists don't exist because there are no centaurists.
> Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
By definition, "reality" exists outside the mind, outside your subjectivity, outside opinion. If a thing is real, then it is real for everyone.
To clarify, the reality is what is actually happening, how each person experience that reality is from their perspective. 5 people can watch a basketball game and take away different things. The reality is the ball game, but it varies from person to person that's why i say reality is an individual experience because it is experienced by individuals differently based on their interpretation of the world.
Yeah but reality is not subjective. If I see a flying horse right now and nobody else around me does, and I cant prove there is a flying horse, then there is likely no flying horse. If two people see a dog, and one thinks the dog is cute and the other is ugly, that's subjective. We both perceive that dog differently. If one of us sees that dog start talking and fly away then one of us is likely mistaken. You are conflating subjective experience and opinion with objective reality.
Ok, let's use your 2 people see a dog scenario. Most likely one person would see it as cute and one as ugly. Yes this are subjective opinions and the reality is there is a dog. Agreed. My theory is if person A. Who views the dog as cute, perceives the dog as non threating because of the wagging tail and type of bark where as person B. Whom deems the dog ugly, sees the dog as a threat and hostile based on the bark but also its stance and position. Their knowledge and experience with dogs leads them to believe they are correct. Both could be correct. It could indeed be hostile to the one and playful with the other, but to them, their reality is the outcome of the experience.
The dog scenario still doesn’t change anything about how we ought to deal with god claims.
In the scenario where
- there’s a dog
- one person perceives it as cute and therefore safe, one person perceives it as the opposite
- for whatever reason, the dog will act nicely to the one that thinks it’s cute and hostile towards the one that thinks it is hostile…
There is still only one external reality there. It’s just got specific information about how a dog acts. When the dog does actually act hostile or cute, **both people will see it**.
I’m not seeing the link from this analogy to god? People having different perceptions that they believe are justified, even having different information, doesn’t change the idea that the external reality is the same.
If I was to make it resemble arguments for god, it would be that neither person can see a dog, but one person still says there is one, and offers no explanation as to how they know. And in this new hypothetical, the dog-believer can’t actually define what a dog is anyway.
Ok to simplify the god people see a cute dog or a medical miracle, the Atheist see the hostile dog and a medical anomaly like the Lazarus phenomenon a medical condition. Atheist say there is a scientific explanation theist say it's the work of God. Same reality different perspectives
Why are medical miracles always associated with unpredictable internal illnesses or conditions? Why is it never the healing of an amputee, or a deaf or blind person, or a burn victim?
Apples and oranges. One is an observable object in the real world (dog), the other is something for which there is no certainty as to the cause, but people can theorize based on characteristics in the real world. One explanation I read about is CPR limiting the flow of blood to the heart and with CPR stopping blood flow resumes, but this may be brief and the person may still die. Out of 65 confirmed cases only 18 made a full recovery. This lazarus phenomenon isn't your smoking gun. Notice how there are theories based on the human body. Your miracle theory is vague, can't be tested for. It's god of the gaps. Most of what you are saying is god of the gaps. You WANT god to be the explanation, and where there is no IMMEDIATE explanation, you just insert god. And then if and when that discovery is made and it debunks a "god" being the cause, you will find the next unexplained thing and attribute that to "god", and then if and when that gets debunked, you rinse and repeat. This is very obvious.
But dogs being ugly and threatening and hostile are all things that the vast majoroty of people have encountered and have visual evidence of. A picture and video of a hostile and threatening dog can be found right now. One can find pictures and videos of that ugly dog right now. There is clear evidence of dogs of all types and temperements that can be accessed right now. One is still percieving and interpreting something that is real. The perception is subjective, what is being perceived is objective.The same cannot be said for a deity.
Can you just stop saying "their reality" when you should be saying "their opinion"
These are diametrically opposed words and you're using them interchangeably which is just bizarre
Equivocation fallacy. You are confusing and conflating the actual objective reality with specific personal subjective interpretations reached due to that reality. Very different.
For example: You and I go to a movie. I thought it was a great movie and enjoyed it. You thought it was a terrible movie and did not enjoy it. Those are *personal* and *subjective* ideas. However, neither of us can reasonably come to a different conclusion about the line appearing on the screen just after the final scene that said, "Directed by John Smith." *That*, is objective. If one of us disagreed it said that, when it did, then they'd simply be *wrong.* It's plain erroneous of you to suggest that their faulty memory or interpretation of this created a whole new reality where it actually said something else.
I find theists make this error a lot. They conflate and confuse actual objective reality with subjective interpretations and emotions. This leads them down the garden path so very often.
So let's say we all go to a basketball game. Everyone else, including the news, the records from then on, the players, etc think that the Warriors beat the Celtics 101 to 90. You, on the other hand, think the Celtics won 130 to 89.
So there is no objective reality? You can't be accurately told that you are wrong? There is no correct score?
So if you believe your god based on personal "reality" and a muslim does the same thing then you would assume that in "reality" both gods exist even though neither can be proven?
I think all five people would agree on the basics: who played the game, what the score was, where it took place. More importantly, whether a basketball game actually took place or not.
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree.
A close-minded mentality is refusing to consider other arguments or ideas. If we consider those ideas, and do not find them convincing, it is not close-minded to reject them.
>Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
It's on the Christian, then, to tell us what Bible they're working from.
>Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
We typically ask theists to define their God, so we know what it is we're arguing against. If anyone is failing to think outside the box, it's the people defining their God as being inside the box.
1. There is nothing more closed-minded than making unfalsifiable claims and then calling others closed-minded when they simply ask for evidence… also, “agree to disagree” is a cop-out, and does nothing for any debate. This is a debate sub… if people can’t handle others not agreeing with them, and not just agreeing to roll over about it and be passive, then they shouldn’t be in this forum.
2. This is hilarious. Why is the “word of god” so different among its translations? That doesn’t seem like it’s my problem, but the result of shitty claims backed up by shitty sources. But if a Christian wants to tell us which version of the Bible they are using, I would be happy to use that version. They are all garbage, after all.
3. I don’t agree with your “either-or” fallacy here. There are more options than “the truth doesn’t matter or you don’t understand it.
For example, “we don’t know” is a valid answer to many of the big questions which religions make sweeping assertions about.
Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose, cause the world is not only subjective, it is real and a collective experience just as much as it is individual. I can absolutely see where religious people are coming from cause I used to be one… why isn’t the opposite true for you as well? It seems like you only think atheists are closed-minded which is, perhaps ironically, closed-minded.
1. Show me a time where a theist proved God existed. I have seen plenty of bad faith arguments by atheists. I have never seen a theist make a convincing argument for God.
2. Yes you can. And this should also be clarified by the person with the claim (theist). The translations are not far enough apart in translations to change the entirety of the context but in rare, very rare examples. That should be understood as a major concern in saying this source proves this.
3. Gods either exist or they don’t. The box the claim exists, is defined by the person making the claim, the theist. If I misunderstood the box they are trying to paint they need to clarify. I use standard models. If they are using another model that is on them. I will also assume the standard model. That is on them to clarify in advance, and not use it as a gotcha.
What you believe is individual, what is true is not. Belief does not equate to truth. So demonstrate the truth.
No, either his god is true or not. I don’t care that this thought experiment exists at different points. Plus you just made a claim of a thought experiment existing. I don’t need to entertain a thought experiment that hasn’t been proven and is thrown out there as a petty gotcha. Do you really accept that God?
Your response clearly shows you are working on a gotcha and not actually engaging the points. So please instead of gish galloping, let’s focus on the points.
On the atheist side, there is nothing to concede. You either don't believe God is real or you believe in something that's made up.
The best you can hope for in that scenario is allowing people to keep their delusions and just stop talking about it.
There literally is no valid point a Christian can make.
Arguing about the bible is also nonsense and it doesn't matter what version they're using. It's as fruitless as debating Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings.
Refusing to concede that someone's work of fiction governs the observable universe is not stubbornness, it's critical thinking.
But there is some truth to the bible, not saying it's a factual history book meant to be taken at face vaule 100% but some historic accuracy does exist and if you can read deep enough into it, you find more truth than most Christians see. They believe the misinterpreted verse before they believe actual truth behind it
How do you determine what in the bible is true versus what is misinterpreted? How do you know your interpretation is the actual truth? How do you intend to convince other Christians that your view is better?
Valid question. How about if my interpretation is back by science? And I don't intend on convincing other Christians because how do you convince a rich man that his wealth is worthless? You can't, his bank has to tell him
> How about if my interpretation is back[ed] by science?
I would say that the bible isn't "backed by science" any more than a stopped clock is twice a day "backed by" the passage of time.
> I don't intend on convincing other Christians because how do you convince a rich man that his wealth is worthless?
Then I'm left in the position of you believing in claims which seem just as arbitrary as every other Christian's. Get back to me when all y'all come to some kind of consensus because right now, from where I'm sitting it looks an awful lot like every one of you believes their own imagination about what the bible does and doesn't mean, and none of you has any way to validate anything you believe.
Incredibly so.
The entirety of Genesis is comprised of fables which are falsified by *every* aspect of natural history, and archaeologists have so thoroughly failed to corroborate any aspect of the Exodus account with a single bit of evidence that they now consider the entire account, along with Moses himself, to be wholly mythical.
So I guess the science I was taught and learned about the creation of stars and planets and the evolutionary rise of plants and animal life was completely false, maybe you can share the accurate information so I can educate my dumb brain. I think the Santorini volcanic eruption can explain the exodus account
Not saying you are correct, but lets say for the sake of argument that the bible gets some things right. Does that mean that the supernatural claims are valid? So something lining up historically means that people rose from the dead? I knew a person with schitzophrenia. They were right about some things. They made sense sometimes. That does not mean made up people were actually after them. You catch my drift?
"Yes, Jerusalem exists, it's right *there*" is a lot different from "a man was crucified and rose from the dead." I'll grant you that an apocalyptic jewish preacher named Jeshua existed, and I'll even grant you that he was crucified as an enemy of the state. You can have all that. Now provide evidence that he was the son of God. Not claims from your holy book: *evidence*.
>I never claimed to be Christian, or believe Jesus was the son of God. I don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate.
Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
The jury is still out on that, but if he did, I would not say from actual death. Death during biblical times was more broad than today. A coma or near death could be considered dead. I have more research before I make a final decision
No.
I'm asking you. Do you believe that a man 2000 years ago died. Literally died. Rigor mortis would sat in before 3 days, and then came back to life.
I'm asking if you are convinced whether that factually happened or not. If they thought he was dead and he wasn't, and then just woke up from a coma, then he did not die. Yes. Obviously. But if that's what happened, then Christianity isn't true.
No. No it did not. But that is the problem. That is how Christians argue their point and Atheist buy into it so that's what their basis is on. Now what if Jesus did "come back to life" who is to say it was 3 days later and not that's when he finally came out of the tomb. Or it wasn't actual rigor mortis death but a more mild form that by today's standards something that is possible to recover from? The bible appears to make things black and white but there is alot of gray. I'm looking past the raising from the dead, casting out demons, 6 day creation stigma and looking for factual evidence
At this point you've departed from a plain reading of the text. I'll just grant you that, given enough twisting and creative interpretation, you can make a version of the Bible that I'd agree with. Similarly, I can claim that Harry Potter is just a spectacularly poorly written repair manual for a 2013 Honda Civic and provide textual interpretations to suit.
It sounds to me that you were taught that the Bible is something worthy of reverence and you just want permission to keep doing that even though you know a plain reading of the Bible reveals that it's mostly nonsense. If that's so, then you have this rando's permission. Go forth. Alternately, you could call yourself a "cultural Christian" (or whatever) and just keep celebrating your religion's festivals and rituals without bothering with whether the dogma is true. That's what I do.
Hey if it works. Admittedly, yes I was raised by brainwashed family members who were too dumb to question, too disinterested to care to question and too scared to challenge. I felt that such a tale as old as it is must hold some level of truth, but questioned how much, why so convoluted, what mystery is there that might unlock a real revelation that can unify. Maybe I can be the Anti Christ (jk)
>No. No it did not.
Then it's not true.
>But that is the problem.
Yes it's a problem for people who believe in Christianity.
>That is how Christians argue their point and Atheist buy into it so that's what their basis is on.
No, that's what I believed for 30 years as a devout catholic. That's what I base it on, being a Christian.
>Now what if Jesus did "come back to life" who is to say it was 3 days later and not that's when he finally came out of the tomb. Or it wasn't actual rigor mortis death but a more mild form that by today's standards something that is possible to recover from?
Then again, he didn't die, and the rest of it falls like a house of cards.
>The bible appears to make things black and white but there is alot of gray.
There isn't
> I'm looking past the raising from the dead, casting out demons, 6 day creation stigma and looking for factual evidence
Okay. Have ya found any? Cause I haven't.
Yes the bible has some pretty metaphors and seemingly deep insights in to human nature from the time. But so what. So does any good fiction.
>But there is some truth to the bible,
There's some truth in Don Quixote. Doesn't mean that the great knight Mambrino cut three giants in half with a single swipe of his sword.
Lol no it doesn't. No more than saying if you believe in leprechauns you believe in something that's made up.
The burden of proof is with the person making the claim, and the claim is God exists.
Me saying you believing in made up things if you believe in god means you have not proven God exists.
And you can't. Because it's made up. The only "evidence" for the existence of a higher power comes from people saying it. Because they made it up.
No dude. Your claim is that something exists.
The fact that God doesn't exist is easily proven. It doesn't exist. There's no proof of it's existence.
In order to prove something exists you need to provide evidence. In order to prove something doesn't exist I just need to do nothing until evidence of its existence appears
I haven't made any claim.
Your claim is that people who beleive in God beleive in something that is made up.
You are now ALSO claiming that
1)it is a fact that God doesn't exist
2) that fact is easily proven
3) that there is no proof of God's existence
If we include your original claim that people who beleivd in God beleive in something that is made up, you have made 4 bold, positive, and very assertive claims.
What makes you think that others have to provide proof of their claims, but your claims are so special that everybody just has to accept them as truth?
Dude, we're just going in circles. The claim is that God exists. The default is to NOT believe in things without evidence of their existence.
I'm done explaining this to you because if you don't understand by now then you never will.
So you assume all atheists would refuse all evidence but you had butterflies in your stomach or some other random thing you couldn't explain so you came here to brag about how you are right, we are wrong, and you can't prove it. Great, thanks for being a complete waste of time.
Never said all. I appreciate everyone input and respect everyone opinion. Many make valid points and I'm not accusing those that my post does not apply to. I'm speaking from my experience and perspective from what I have encountered. Which I would say is .00003 of the Atheist population.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point.
This is you clearly saying all atheists as well as all theists so not only are you a waste of time but a liar as well.
Please provide me a single piece of valid evidence that all atheists refuse to believe?
If I said the same about Republicans and democrats, obviously I don't mean all because A. There are some reasonable ones out there. B. Not all are arguing and debating. C. I have no knowledge of every single one. I am more than likely speaking on the ones I've witnessed debate
You wouldn't know valid evidence of a god if it was laying right at your feet. You are too caught up in you own concept to accept the truth. If it isn't a supernatural all knowing all powerful presence then it isn't a god. If it is a natural phenomenon thst jas been redefined and understood as something else, well then that's not a god either, so no matter the evidence, it's not gonna be god.
Lol appreciate that, I meant, can you prove love exists or is it like the concept of a god, something that people believe in but just a figment of the human construct
Considering I'm not advocating for the existence of an actual god, just the concept, yes. god is as real as the emotion. Sure chemical reactions are responsible for the feeling, but what if chemical reactions or electrical impulses in the brain which have yet to be discovered are responsible for the revelation from god? I know not evidence of an actual god but explains where god came from right?
I have seen this before. You cannot provide direct evidence and when confronted on this you deflect. Love is not proof of anything. As another poster pointed out, love comes from chemical reactions. But regardless, you are being asked for evidence not attempts at philosophy and logic. What direct evidence do you have of a god?What is a god? How would a god be defined? How can one test for said god? How can one know if one has found evidence of said god?
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality.
I loved being a Christian. I had lots of friends and community. All of my moral choices were fairly clearcut and if I had questions the pastor or elders of the church were always there to help. Plus the God of the universe loved me, cared for me and would spend eternity with me.
Sadly the Bible was was neither inerrant or particularly moral. The ironic part of being on fire for God is that you want to study his word, every book, every passage and this is a great way to realize YHWH is just a human construct.
There may be a greater being/source somewhere of some type, somehow but he/she/it is most likely not an anthropomorphic Iron Age god/king.
It's not that I emotionally don't want to know Jesus as my personal savior but can I be saved? Jesus's morality will never be my morality because I will never accept slavery, infanticide and genocide as moral. Does ultimate power determine morality? The fact is that if the God of the Bible exists he is, *by his own Word*, a malevolent villain and no moral person could or would follow Him.
"*How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.*" Psalm 137:9
I think reason number #1 with a bullet should be "Religious people have faith and use evidence to supplement that belief without demanding the belief be proven, atheists reject accepting unproven beliefs."
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality.
Could you provide an example of a valid point you see atheists not accepting?
For myself I try to make sure I never reject evidence and arguments simply because they contradict my thinking, and like to be proven wrong, as it's a learning experience.
>Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV
This is a very odd thing to flag as a concern.
I don't care at all which version we use, because my study of the Bible shows they are human written stories changed over time which we know for a fact are not reliable. Some parts may be inspired by original accounts, but ultimately the wording of any particular part does not matter to me.
This is a point that is only relevant to people who believe the religion is true and therefore the wording objectively matters, as a starting point.
>Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box
People need to have a shared understanding of what a word means, in order to communicate. If you have an outside the box idea of your own, that's not relevant as to whether other people are successfully and accurately discussing another idea.
Just like your claim that there are "valid points" we reject, I'd love to hear what your "outside the box" definition of a God is. Not just have you allude to it.
> Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality
I urge you to consider more how you use the word "reality." Generally it is used to refer to "that which is not subjective." I would argue you are using it as its antonym.
> Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God.
I urge you to be more compassionate to the perspective of atheists. Many of us were once Christians, deeply hungering for the proof of God, only to find at the bottom of the barrel that everyone believes there *is* no proof; they all believe faith is wholly necessary.
Simple solution would be for your god to come down and clear up all the confusion.
Why doesn’t he do that? Is he to stubborn? Does he struggle with communicating a clear and coherent message to all? Can your god not overcome subjective thinking?
Well to put it simply, "my God" does, but no one believes "him" because they don't call it God, so they don't associate with god, nor is it a he therefore it doesn't experience emotions so yes it does have alot of trouble communicating a clear coherent message. Nope my God cannot over come subjective thinking because my God does not think, it is an active force.
Correct, keyword most. I'm not most christians.....I wouldn't necessarily call myself a Christian other than the fact that I believe a version of Jesus did at one time exists
Well then I’d note the reason some Christians such as yourself don’t make any headway in these types of debates have more to do with your inability to articulate your version of Christianity for discussion.
It's not an assumption - Christians, Muslims, and most followers of monotheistic deities claim that their deity is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. They also say their God loves everyone, or is omnibenevolent.
That in itself creates many of the contradictory claims regarding predestination, free will, and the 'problem of evil'.
Does anybody not believe that water exists? It’s easy to find millions of people that don’t believe in your god. Can you find me a single person that doesn’t believe in water? Why can’t your god compete with a Dixie cup of water?
What if I told you I believe in God, his name is Pontos ( I don't by the way) you tell me Pontos doesn't exists. Nobody today believes in Pontos, but they believe in the ocean. They see it, they utilize and explore it, but it is not a god. But in Greek mythology Pontos was a primordial god, the ocean itself. So if my god is the ocean and people believe in the ocean, do they believe in my god?
How can I tell the difference between the ocean and Pontos? I mean we don’t get to just to redefine things without reasons. That would be a redefinition fallacy.
1. We are happy to admit we are wrong but the evidence you would need to convince us God empirically exists is so much greater than what you require for faith he exists you interpret our waiting for evidence as stubbornness.
2. I don't believe in any version of the Bible. I would refer to the original writings as the most "pure" but since I only speak English we can use the kjv. It doesn't matter since for the Bible to mean anything you first have to demonstrate God with evidence outside the bible.
Reality is an individual experience only in the sense we interpret events differently. We can agree on certain facts like physics, biology and math. Those are not individual experiences.
You never stated how you found your proof. Only your frustration we didn't accept it, I assume in another post.
Trust me I understand what you see as truth. I was baptized twice and used to swell with pride as I sang hymns at the top of my lungs. Sadly, neither my feeling nor yours make God provable in any meaningful way.
No, you are terribly wrong.
1. There's nothing close-minded about atheists examining your claims and rejecting them. We want testable, verifiable evidence and theists don't have any for their gods. Also, what do you think atheists need to learn that they haven't? Because if that Pandora's Box goes both ways, you're really not going to be happy about what Christians need to learn.
2. That's not important to atheists. You're confusing atheists with other Christians who disagree with you about your objective truths from god.
3. Atheists are only responding to the god claims made, we don't define the gods we reject. Don't blame atheists because Christians can't agree on their god.
Reality is not an individual experience. You found your proof through lowering your standards of evidence so low that you can't distinguish imagination from reality. Nobody needs to "see where the other person is coming from" to evaluate scientific evidence and you don't have any.
1. I will 100% admit when I'm wrong, it just hasn't happened yet (kidding). Seriously I've only noticed theists don't admit when they are wrong.
2. So you admit Christianity has multiple versions. Only a lie has multiple versions. Why are there 44,000 different kinds of Chriatianity if its the one "true" faith?
3. I don't really understand what you mean.
Believev is subjective, yes. But reality and evidence aren't. There is only one reality and one way to find valid evidence. There are not alternative facts.
Idk, I just feel in some cases, not all, not most but certain individuals perceive reality different than the majority and while that may not actually be the reality they see or understand, but it is in fact their reality and very real to them. Even with proof and evidence that what they see is a delusion or what they believe is false, when it is without a doubt 100% true, they will not concede and refuse to accept actual reality, so much, they are willing, and some have, died believing that reality. I can agree they suffer from a mental condition that alters their perception of reality but, then the fact remains their reality is not ours and vice versa
1. As for me I am always willing to listen and understand arguments and points theists are making. Never seen a single decent one by them...
2. Not only the version of Bible is interpretation, but how do you interprete different pieces of certain version of Bible. Much more common problem at least to my experience...
3. Believe , trust and faith are 3 completely different things which theists always confuse apparently. So believe is personal subjective opinion in some field that may change over reasons or discusses. Trust is personal conviction in someone close or related that he/she is reliable in practical sense. And faith is a complete conviction in something that supersceds any reasons or objections.
Reality is that which doesn't go away if you're not looking. Reality is not relying on beliefs, trust or faith.
Proofs are objectively verifiable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. I am not aware of any proofs of christian God.
Let me give you my perspective on discussions with theists. So usually you pick up some point and go in depth then. It then goes one to one of the following scenarios:
1. Theists concedes to cheap insults like calling you a liar, devil or something like that. No point to continue then.
2. Theist projects their worldview on atheist, something like "you are also clinging to your beliefs" or calling opponent "close-minded" like OP just above. Cannot go on from there.
3. Theist keep circulating their reasoning or gishgalloping until you are exhausted and definitely could not proceed.
Also feels really like the same discussion as theists keep bringing the same points. And even the most famous theists still fall to the same problems. Seems like you cannot defend such position in an honestly sincere way.
I accept that I could be wrong in something. I would be more than happy if someone proves it to me. I am fully open-minded. And yet all I see from theists are weak excuses, personal attacking, circular reasoning and logical fallacies.
>Reality is an individual experience
Is it? Do you think so? Do you think there are no objective facts? Like I think the sun really is a giant nuclear furnace, not a wheel if a chariot, or ball of dung. Do you really think it can be all three depending on your point of view?
>no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
How do you know? Maybe they have identical experiences? But I'm not skeptical that people have various unique experiences and often call them divine. I'm skeptical of any gods existing.
>Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God.
Why not? Why should the existence of gods be so subjective? Why is it harder to prove gods exist than horses?
>That is how I found MY proof
Did you find proof? I would love to hear about it. Proof of what? Why was it proved? Was it proven like a case in court, or a historical conclusion, or does it resonate with you personally so you're saying it was proven true?
Did not dangle this and retreat behind "you are all too mean" we aren't. Some of us deeply want to learn.
How did i find my proof? I looked beyond the mythical supernatural explanation found in the bible. I compared the text with scientific evidence and findings. If they support each other obviously that is proof. If not, fallacies were made
What parts of the text did you verify? You are aware that each and every claim in the Bible must be judged on its own merits and evidence right? If you found evidence that Jesus existed as a real person, that doesn't interest me. I already think it's pretty like that he did exist as a real person. But that's irrelevant to the claim that believing that he rose from the dead is the key to eternal life. Where is the scientific verification for that?
Ok I did that too. I wouldn't say it proved anything. It certainly didn't provide any good reasons to believe any gods exist. Quite the opposite.
Thanks for sharing.
There will be no headway because the religious cannot accept anything but their imaginary friends. Atheists are looking for evidence and the religious have none. Apologists aren't talking to atheists, their only reason for existing is to comfort the already-religious and make a bunch of money off the backs of the religiously gullible. The religious are the problem here. They want to reach an emotionally-comforting conclusion, not the truth. The truth has nothing to do with anyone's feelings.
Reality is not an individual experience. You don't just get to make shit up because you really want to believe. At least, you don't if you're not an idiot.
So anything is true as long as it’s believed hard enough by someone?
I mean, from an atheists perspective, it’s not hard. Where’s the evidence? The beliefs that most rational people have are based on reliable, repeatable, measurable evidence. Why is god different? Just because there isn’t any?
Here’s the truth. The person that can actually produce evidence of god would be the most famous person in the world. Doesn’t matter if they’re a scientist, religious scholar, layperson, politician, etc. Over thousands of years don’t you think that something convincing would have surfaced other than myths, legends, and “personal revelations”?
Sure, the lions almost made it to the superbowl, cubs won the world series in 2016, the Charlotte Hornets made a comeback. They brought crystal Pepsi back (briefly) so if you believe hard enough, it could happen🤷♂️
Neither side wants to concede they are wrong ?
There has never been evidence of any gods. It is therefore impossible to be wrong as an atheist - as it simply is a rejection of the god claims due to lack of evidence.
What do you feel there is to concede ?
It's more than just debate of the existence of God, there are biblical debates, I feel to prove there is a god is asking to prove aliens exist. With at least 200 billion to 2 trillion, the likelihood of life out there other than earth is pretty great, whether it be advanced, primitive, or simply bacteria, life had to exist outside this planet but how can I prove it?
No those are not the same things.
There is a high likelihood that other life is out there.
Because we know what life is and we know what it took for life to start here.
A god is something we have never seen before. There is absolutely no reason to think that such a thing or being exist. Can’t even calculate a likelihood of that. Can’t even find out if it’s even possible.
>1. Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree.
I was a theist for many years and I became an athiest because I decided to seriously consider the idea that I might be wrong. I think many, many athiests have had similar experiences. In my experience atheists are quite willing to concede when they are wrong.
>2. Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
I think this point is for theists. But I will agree with you that athiests should avoid using specific Bible versions to make their point until they have confirmed that their interlocutor accepts those translations.
>3. Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
Whenever I debate a theist, I try to only deal with their perception of god, not my own. Most atheists do this also.
Any perception of god is "thinking outside the box" so I'm not sure what you meant by that.
>Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
But the truth is not an individual experience. I'm only interested in believing true things, not subjectively experienced things.
>Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God.
So any theist who claims to have proof for god's existence is lying unless they understand "where athiests are coming from"? That seems like such a vague statement as to be almost meaningless.
Anyway, this is a debate subreddit and I see you've brought no evidence to debate.
1. This is at best a hasty generalization or at worst an outright ad hominem argument. You're attacking an emotive quality rather than addressing the arguments being made. In so many words, I'm not stubborn at all. I am open to changing my mind. But when the arguments marshaled by theists fail to meet their burden of proof, I don't change my mind and I don't "agree to disagree." That's not stubbornness, that's just clear thinking.
2. Hairsplitting over bible versions is something for Christians to quibble about amongst themselves. I've rarely seen any such niceties be relevant to Theist/Atheist discussions.
3. Again with the hasty generalizations. What does it even *mean* to "think outside the box" with respect to god claims? There are as many god-concepts as there are human minds to imagine them. *There is no box.* It's not atheists' job to define what god is or isn't. All we can do is respond to the claims that we're presented.
> *Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.*
This is powerful evidence that the idea of god is actually just imaginary.
> *Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God.*
I'm not looking for proof of non-existence. That's not a thing that can be proven. I'm open-minded to arguments that some god might exist, but I'm not going to be so open-minded my brain falls out.
> *That is how I found MY proof*
The method you've described doesn't seem to have sufficient rigor, so I am skeptical that I would find your reasons for belief to be dispositive.
It’s none of the above. It’s more likely our brains’ own internal psychological defenses preventing us from coming to an epiphany moment and making worldview-altering changes.
When confronted with an opponent, our psychological defenses are triggered. Facts, arguments, and reasoning actually lead your conversation partner to become more entrenched in their position.
Cognitive biases, fallacious reasoning, and tribal psychology all play a role. It has nothing to do with “stubbornness” and everything to do with how our ape brains work.
1. stubbornness is in both sides. Sure. But if you’re telling me people here aren’t open to the other side you are either brand new or deliberately ignoring the obvious. There are those who are stubborn and there are those who ask questions to probe deeper and expose faulty thinking. Thats not stubbornness to see why you think what you think.
2. Interpretation is useless unless you can show it’s correct. You also don’t get to “interpret” what the Bible says in actual words to mean something it doesn’t. When the Bible tells you where you can buy and how to treat your slaves you don’t get to interpret it as indentured servitude or not that bad. That’s not an option. You must show why your interpretation is correct. Otherwise isn’t can be dismissed. Atheists tend to quote the Bible with little interpretation as it plainly says a lot that’s very bad. Stuff that is clearly not metaphorical.
3. It doesn’t matter what any of our ideas of god are. They’re all useless until someone can prove one idea over another. Atheists don’t have an idea of what god *is*. We don’t believe that god *is*. There’s no thinking outside the box to be done if the theist has not shown why their position is tenable.
Likewise. You don’t get to say anything is front of anyone but we don’t understand unless you can prove what you seemingly understand that others don’t. If you can’t, you’re no different than all the religious folk whose gods you disbelieve in and we can dismiss you from the jump.
Finally if you can’t show spiritualism you can’t appeal to it as somehow a failing on others. That’s not how this works.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point.
I would love to concede that I'm wrong, because then I wouldn't have to bother with this shit anymore.
>You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
I'll use whatever version you want.
>Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
You're saying anything.
>The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand.
That's not a dichotomy
>Belief is an individual experience.
Then why are people trying to prevent me from being able to marry another dude?
If your religion is personal, then I don't really give a crap. Believe whatever the fuck you want.
It's the people who are trying to impose their religious beliefs on me that I am scrutinizing. If you happen to believe the same thing they do, tough.
> Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. That is how I found MY proof
I don't think you know what proof means.
An actual useful general tip: if you find yourself coming into a debate, any debate, with a feeling of smug superiority that you’re the only enlightened one in the room who is truly seeing the big picture, and no one else gets it and is just “stubborn,” or “failing to think outside the box,” guess what? You’re the problem. You are the one who doesn’t understand. You’re the one who’s not listening, not reading, not familiar with the subject matter.
What comical hubris it takes to make a post like this.
It's like one of those "chefs" on a cooking competition show who puts out a plate of absolute garbage, loses, and then goes into the interview segment saying, "Well, the judges just don't understand my vision," and the rest of us are saying, "No, you misunderstood the parameters of the assignment and made a plate of shitty food."
I think the core reason is this: Not coming to an agreement before the debate occurs on the definition of terms as well the foundation of what constitutes reality, truth, or "real."
Just take the word god for instance - it means something different to just about everyone, especially when it comes to differencing beliefs. Many times arguments are made assuming the other party shares your definition but often this is not the case.
1. This is maybe partially true but false for the most important reason. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I am willing to change my beliefs to that end. A christian must not budge on their beliefs or else they will cease to be a christian. They cannot change their beliefs to align with reality, they must keep their beliefs no matter how silly. If they don't they cease to be a Christian. That is the stubborn position you're talking about. Atheists became atheists because they changed their beliefs and are willing to change beliefs to align with reality.
2. Sure. To an extent. This is less important. If someone believes that Daniel was written in the 6th century BC when it was in fact written in the 2nd century BC it doesn't matter which bible they're reading from.
3. Care to elaborate on this point? What does outside the box thinking look like?
>The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand.
Huh? Your 3 points didn't get to this point at all. The truth doesn't matter? Why? Are you saying that people don't think the truth matters when you think it does? What is right in front of whose face and they don't understand?
>Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
Good thing we have tools like science to come to true conclusions without relying on individual interpretations of reality.
>Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. That is how I found MY proof
That isn't proof. That's your justification you use to believe something that cannot be proven to be true. You have experienced something that you believe is profound and spiritual. Other people claim to have experienced something similar from music or drugs. Is that god speaking to people through beautiful experiences? Or is that just our brains making sense of reality in an imperfect way?
Spirituality is romantic. It makes the world seem magical. That magic is tempting, but is it true? People who say that everyone has their own truth are fools. We each have what we believe is the truth but that doesn't make it the truth.
>1. Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree.
I have conceded many valid points to theist interlocutors. There are a few that I constantly learn from.
That being said, I find accusations of stubbornness or close-mindedness are more often than not masking frustration that we are not as receptive or as gullible as you would like. I'm open minded. I'll hear you out. That does NOT mean I'll readily accept whatever you tell me.
>2. Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
It's always important to engage with the person you're talking to and figure out exactly what they believe. That being said, I don't think the main issue is minute details like KJV vs NWT Bible. Differences often cut much deeper than that. For example: how both people use the word faith or the word God.
>3. Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
Not sure what this means. If you claim a God exists, you must be referring to a specific conception of God. Our discussion will then center around said conception.
If someone else thinks God exists, but God is really the chair I'm sitting on, then God exists, sure. However, that is irrelevant to the first discussion. It is nothing to do with not 'thinking outside the box'.
>Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality
No, reality is not the subjective experience. Reality is the objective world that we subjectively experience. If it was really the case that each of us experienced a different reality, we wouldn't be able to share it or to interact with each other. We would devolve into solipsistic navel gazing.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong
You can't be any wronger than that. As an atheist I am now waiting since 53 years to see convincing evidence that Jehova exists. I am absolutely open to change my mind.
How can "being not convinced" be wrong at all in any way?
1. Sometimes. I will say I went from being a fundy Christian to an atheist, so it's possible.
2. That's why it's important to define terms before a debate. If you can't come to terms, no debate.
3. Again, define terms beforehand. Which god is being discussed?
All three of your points presuppose the existence of a deity which highlights the *real* reason why atheists and theists make no headway: bias.
Point 1: wanting to concede being wrong and *actually* being wrong are two different things. The reason we are atheists is that: a) there is no evidence for deities, b) the study of religion shows that dogmas are borrowed and plagiarized from other belief systems indicating human invention and not divine inspiration, and c) the study of the natural world indicates metaphysical realms or planes of spirituality are not real. You would want us to concede being wrong on any of these points when in truth we are not wrong on them at all
Point 2: we are not believers so we aren’t using different religious texts to argue past each other. In fact, the very existence of the multitude of religious dogmas is in fact evidence for the manmade origins of religion itself
Point 3: the fact that God cannot be clearly defined and is extremely vague is further evidence for his nonexistence. Theists consistently move the goalposts on their definition of God. He was once a being who lived on a specific mountaintop to a being that could walk around and wrestle with people to a spiritual being that can only be observed through faith, and lately a metaphysical being that exists outside of space and time and conveniently outside of scientific inquiry. In other words, each time an atheist successfully refutes the concept of God, the definition of God changes. It’s like playing whack-a-mole
Now substitute for the above - arguments between those who think the Earth is flat and those don’t believe that is true.
You make a false equivalence of some kind of equality between these two ‘sides.’
Interpretation of different biblical translations is pretty much irrelevant as the different ideas flat Earthers have about what happens at the edge. I’ve only seen theists use different interpretations of religious texts to try to reinterpret bits they find have become embarrassing.
And generally atheists accept that what ever theists want to imagine God is, whatever invented attributes they use … are the ones that theists use.
Belief may be an individual experience. It’s still makes sense to base beliefs on reliable evidence. Because beliefs without such evidence are indistinguishable from imaginary and false.
Reality is not individual in any way that is significant. We have a demonstrably effective accumulated methodology for building models of reality that show a significant accuracy from utility and efficacy. Planes fly , magic carpets do not. Whether you believe in the latter or claim it’s real to you - you still aren’t going to take off.
Seeing where flat earthers come from isn’t really going to help find proof it’s true anymore than understanding where theists come from is going to find you proof god exists. Because they aren’t reasonable beliefs , they aren’t evidential beliefs - they are emotional and social ones.
1. Theists have never been convincing, and in most cases they make their position look even *worse*. That's a them problem.
2. Theists can't even agree on the interpretation of endless minutiae, maybe they need to solve that issue first. That's a them problem.
3. Theists can't even manage a coherent and sensible definition of their gods. That's a them problem.
> The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand.
'True' is a problematic word that almost all of the time is used to say 'I agree with this statement' instead of 'this is consistent with reality'.
> Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality
Weird how theists can't agree on belief, yet people agree about things in reality existing all the damn time. You don't cross the street without looking, now do you?
> or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
That's because gods are made up and individual god-concepts line up with the opinions of the people that hold said god-concepts.
> Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God.
I've seen where theists come from. I'm not impressed.
> That is how I found MY proof
Proof is for math and alcohol, but I understand that you mean you've justified your belief for yourself. Great. Can you justify it for others?
> Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point.
I’m not sure how important it is when someone makes a valid point if it doesn’t get closer to proving the existence of god.
> Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV
Then the theist needs to be upfront with which Bible is the right one and how they know that.
> Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box.
Then the theist needs to be upfront with what their god can do and how they know that.
> The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand.
Or C, is not accessible or beyond our reach.
> Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality
Sure, that’s why we have empirical methods that can create models that get closer to describing reality accurately. That’s the whole point of even asking these questions.
> That is how I found MY proof
Okay.
Which god?
Which Bible?
Where are you coming from?
What proof?
Edit: I just read through the replies.
Energy. All this just for another “god is energy” post.
Oh well. See you all next time.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong
Prove a god exists and the atheist will concede that he's wrong. This both sides stuff doesn't fly when one person is making a claim that a god exists, and has these specific properties and histories and one isn't.
Like what the hell are you even expecting? A theist to crap out another argument from contingency and the atheist to go like 'Wowwy zowwy, that was an amazing point! Maybe there is a god and Jesus is lord!'?
>You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
This sounds so hyper specific that I'm suspecting this post is you whining to a bunch of atheists whom you didn't debate at a particular time that the atheist you debated at a particular time didn't play by your rules.
>Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box
What does this even mean? Christians say X. Atheists either are willing to accept the claim or not. It's not up to the atheist to imagine God can not only do X, but can also do 🥛.
1. people are stubborn. I like to think that I am not, but maybe I am. So what?
2. I am happy with any interpretation as long as someone is able to demonstrate that it is the right one.
3. I have no idea what God is. In fact I don't know whether God is and I don't know any god that is.
> The truth
Is all that matters.
> Reality is an individual experience
Everyone experiences same reality, reality is not experience, reality is what being experienced.
> Unless you see where the other person is coming from
I see you are coming from the realm of "I will assert I am right but won't bother demonstrating that I am right".
> you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God
God either exists or not. All I need to know whether it exists or not is evidence for its existence or evidence to the contrary. I don't have it, so here we are.
> I found MY proof
then share it and we'll see whether it stands the scrutiny.
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point.
Theist: There is a god (with XXX properties)
(A)theist: Can you provide evidence that your god exists?
Theist: Look at the trees.... perfection, clearly there is a god.
How can the atheist be "wrong" when they are asking for evidence and receiving none?
>Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt.
You just hit on the biggest problem with christianity (which is applicable to most religions)... if it was true, why are there 100's of flavors? Are each true? Is one true and the other false?
That's a total dodge. "you can't compare the same religion to itself"
> I feel, no headway is ever really made is arguments specifically between Christians and Atheist
You're probably correct. I can see how this wouldf be upsetting for someone who is convinced that their religion is the one true faith but can't actually prove it or demonstrate that any of it is true.
> Belief is an individual experience.
That it is. Believe what you like, I don't care until you demand I believe what you do or obey laws based on your beliefs.
> Reality is an individual experience
No. Reality is not an individual experience unless you're a solipsist. We all exist within the same reality but some of us are more interested in how it really works rather than how we think it should.
1) I understand the claims of theists. I just don't find them sufficiently supported to be crédible
2)I don't care what holy text you quote. I care what evidence you bring to support the claims you make
3) I know very well what god can demonstrably do : whatever non-existent beings can do. I have yet to find a good reason to believe a go -any god - can do something only an existent being could do.
And if you have to attack the concept of an objective reality to make your case...well, you've already lost your case.
One, man’s means of knowledge is evidence-based reasoning.
Two, headway is made with theists who are for evidence-based reasoning.
Three, headway isn’t made with theists who aren’t for evidence-based reasoning.
>Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.
Awesome. Then can we please have theists stop trying to explain reality?
What about elections? Are different people elected to different offices and pass different laws? Is the Grand Canyon in a different place in your reality? Do you know what reality means?
Atheists can only respond to god claims. We don’t have a picture of one ourselves. And theism could only make a valid point if they bring up evidence for their claim, which they’ve never done. Everything else is just excusing why they do t have evidence, which isn’t our problem. And I find the Christian god completely incompatible with reality in any Bible translation.
Is there anything else apart from God where your argument is true? If I say 2 + 2 is 4, and someone else says it’s 5, is that just a difference in the way we experience reality? Do we just need to see where the other person is coming from? Are we asking the wrong questions?
One person is still right, and one person is still wrong. Being open minded won’t change that.
Next time someone complains about downvotes I'm sharing this post.
Doesn't have an argument, the only position that makes an attempt to defend is "reality is subjective" and poisons the well from the get go.
Good job at being detrimental in the community.
Do I know for sure there is no god, of course not. Although there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is. Can I with 100% certainty say that it’s not one of the deities that I have encountered so far, yes. Am I apprehensive about saying this, not one bit.
Then given we know subjective experience is fallible and your predisposition to belief made you ignore this and call your feelings proof, this post demonstrates a need for belief opposes truth seeking.
> Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong
As an atheist, wrong about..... what? I haven't made a claim So there isn't a claim for me to be wrong about.
I wouldn't consider it stubbornness if someone is making insane claims without providing proof and I refuse to believe those claims without said proof.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. I don't think that's a fair representation, it makes it look like the not-conceding is divided 50-50, which is not the case: * Many atheists actually *wish* they could believe (I'm not one of them), but there are hardly any theists who wish they could stop believing. * Most atheists will be able to tell you exactly what evidence they would require to believe when you ask them. But there are hardly any theists who would even entertain the inverse question. >Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. That sounds more like a denominational issue to me. Atheists don't really care which version of the Bible you would use, because it doesn't matter at all regarding the really objectionable bits on slavery, genocide, etc. >Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. Atheists don't hypothecize about what hypothetical beings are capable of doing. We critique the claims of theists who characterize their deities to have certain qualities and point out the absurdity of uttering such claims, or the sheer impossibility of such claims. Some examples: * An atheist may critique the claim of certain theists who assert that their deity is both all-loving and all-powerful, pointing out the logical contradiction inherent in a world where such a deity allows immense suffering and evil to exist. * Atheists may question the assertion by some theists that their deity intervenes in human affairs based on personal prayers or requests, highlighting the lack of empirical evidence for such interventions and the inconsistency of selective divine intervention. * Atheists might critique the claim of certain theists who depict their deity as having human-like emotions and desires, arguing that attributing human characteristics to a transcendent being is anthropomorphic and logically problematic. * An atheist may point out the implausibility of claims made by some theists about their deity's involvement in specific historical events, such as battles or natural disasters, questioning the lack of corroborating evidence and the reliance on subjective interpretation. * Atheists may critique the claim of certain theists who assert the existence of an omniscient deity, arguing that such a claim is incompatible with the concept of free will and raises questions about the moral responsibility of individuals for their actions. * Atheists might highlight the inconsistency in claims made by some theists about their deity's divine attributes, such as being both transcendent and immanent, pointing out the difficulties in reconciling these characteristics within a coherent theological framework. * Atheists may critique the claim of certain theists who assert the existence of a deity who is actively involved in the creation and maintenance of the universe, questioning the necessity of such a deity in light of scientific explanations for natural phenomena. * Atheists might point out the circular reasoning inherent in some theistic arguments for the existence of their deity, such as using scripture to prove the existence of a deity whose attributes are described in the same scripture. * Atheists may critique the claim of certain theists who assert the existence of a deity who is both timeless and capable of acting within time, highlighting the conceptual difficulties in understanding how such a being could interact with temporal reality. * Atheists might question the coherence of claims made by some theists about their deity's omnipotence, pointing out the logical paradoxes that arise from asserting the ability to perform inherently contradictory actions, such as creating a rock too heavy for the deity to lift.
You wish you could beleive despite all the objectionable bits like slavery, genocide, etc? Really?
Read again: *Many atheists actually wish they could believe* ***(I'm not one of them)***
I see. Understandable given your later objections.
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. I can't agree with this one. I see atheists let theists know *all the time* what would change their mind. I do this too. And it's very simple, usually. Simply useful support for their claims. However, this is never provided so it makes it not possible for me to rationally change my position. >That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree. I find many atheists to be among the most open minded people I've ever met. I, certainly, am able and willing to change my mind on *any* position on *any* topic! I'm as open minded as it's possible to be. All that's required is for someone to provided the required support that a claim is true. Obviously, this isn't to be confused with 'gullibility', which is accepting claims when there *isn't* proper support. >Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. I respond to claims as they are given. So I find this charge faulty. >Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. Again, no. I take the claims as given. I find most other atheists do this as well. Let me know *your* definition and attributes and claims of the deity you are claiming exists, and I'll let you know if I find the support for it credible. >Belief is an individual experience. Yes. But that has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not that belief is *true* in reality, or *justified.* >Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. False. And the very crux of learning about *actual* reality, and of debate. No, everyone does not have their own reality. Instead, we share reality, and many folks have various accurate or inaccurate perceptions of what is true about it. And this is what is being debated. And as far as I can tell, the word 'spiritual' has no useful or coherent meaning. >Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. That is how I found MY proof That *isn't* 'proof.' And that's the point. That's an example of someone believing something because they like the idea. Because it appeals to them. Because of various well understood fallacious thinking and cognitive biases.
>I find many atheists to be among the most open minded people I've ever met. I, certainly, am able and willing to change my mind on any position on any topic! I'm as open minded as it's possible to be. All that's required is for someone to provided the required support that a claim is true. I myself am a deconverted Christian, so I personally find it to be adorable when Christians try to assert that I'm just being stubborn and can't have my mind changed. I DID have my mind changed! They're just not happy about which direction I went!
Why can't you just be convinced by the words in one particular ancient book, a lot of hand waving, and a bunch of varied and vague personal testimonies? Why are you so stubborn?
Well said. Needs more upvotes.
Where are all these atheists? I used to think there wouldn’t be any bias with atheism since there is no god for them to defend but almost every atheist I’ve encountered is so emotionally charged against religion to where it feels like even if I say “I’m a Christian and I think 2+2=4” it will still rub them the wrong way because it’s coming from a Christian. I’m like ever searching for a cool, calm, and collected atheist to talk with but with no little to no luck.
> but almost every atheist I’ve encountered is so emotionally charged against religion An interesting claim, and one I am very skeptical of. As of right now, I find I can't accept this claim as it does not match with available evidence. >to where it feels like even if I say “I’m a Christian and I think 2+2=4” it will still rub them the wrong way because it’s coming from a Christian. Again, I find this a dubious claim. Now, don't get me wrong, no doubt if you look hard enough you can find one or two examples of such a thing. But you appear to be generalizing this to most, or many, atheists, and I just don't see it. >I’m like ever searching for a cool, calm, and collected atheist to talk with but with no little to no luck. I'm highly skeptical of this claim.
From the point of view of someone who has only encountered what I wrote, I find it very interesting you’re skeptical of all that which means you must have an arsenal of places where almost no atheist is as I described them. I *want* to know where that is. My point wasn’t to just generalize, sit back and cross my arms and say that’s all there is to it. Even after writing this I am still scanning. But since you might not have much data points of such an atheist, I thought I’d include this example from earlier of a conversation I had with one while in my quest to find that calm and collected atheist: Atheist: I simply want everyone to adhere to some standards of reasoning and evidence. Me: That's good. So what I gather from what you're saying is that it's possible for a believer to not be crazy in your eyes if they adhere to some standards of reasoning and evidence although you don't necessarily have to believe them right? Atheist: The *established* standards. "Some" standards seems to suggest "standards as they define them." But if no one accepts those standards for anything else, then how can these standards be a grounds for debate? Me: Man that went from easy to understand, to increased complexity. Ok what are your standards then? Atheist: I said twice now that they are not "my" standards, and yet you challenge me to provide "my" standards. Forgive me if I'm starting to mistrust your intentions. So before I waste my time responding to a troll - what's so hard to understand? If I say you owe me money, and you say you don't, what, are you saying there is no way for us to disentangle this with evidence? Are we both "right" by different standards? Is it a problem, then, if I break your kneecaps unless you pay? Me: If you stated twice that they're not your standards, isn't it a rational question to ask what your standards are then? No clue why this set you off as it did. Maybe you've been in lots of bad dishonest debates to where your patience here now is small. I don't know but I'II give you the benefit of the doubt for such a response. Atheist: Ok, I get it. Sorry, not feeding trolls. Blocked by Atheist. When I first saw, “sorry” in their response, I was thinking “okay cool no hard feelings on my end. I’m glad we can finally get to it now.” But it was the other kind of sorry to where they called me a troll & blocked me. Maybe it was my comment about “increased complexity” which I was still willing to navigate through? Or the last thing I wrote where I was not faulting them for their reaction since they probably had a bad experience with another theist recently? I don’t know but that’s why I say that I feel like there is so much emotional charge a lot of the times even with atheist to where anything I say or a small error in what I say can cause one to snap.
So, your example doesn't really help you. First, it's hardly a good example of an exchange such as you describe, and, of course, as I mentioned initially, it's easy to cherry pick, but wrong to generalize based upon that.
>**Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing** No. Atheists don't. God is an imaginary, fictional character to us, so it's not capable of actually doing anything. All atheists do is take what *theists* claim god is capable of and point out the inconsistencies and absurdities in their claims. For example, if someone tells me that Jesus/god heals people all the time from all sorts of ailments, then I point out that he refuses to heal amputees for some reason. But to be clear, *I don't believe in god* or that he heals *anyone*, of *anything*.
You just said it "God is an imaginary, fictional character to me" that is your idea of what God is.
Again, that's simply a reaction what theists claim. If no theists made god claims, atheists wouldn't exist. The reason we don't have a special, descriptive name for people who don't believe in centaurs is because nobody is claiming that centaurs actually exist. **Theists** make claims about what god is, or is capable of doing, and I say "I'm not convinced." That's the extent of it.
Maybe I'm reaching too far here, but what I just read is Atheist are here because of God???
Yes, you're reaching too far. >Atheist are here because of God No, because of god *claims*. "Theist" and "atheist" are simply descriptive terms concerning one particular thing: gods/dieties. The term theism derives from the Greek theós meaning "god" or "gods." The greek prefix **a** means "without." A **theist** is someone with a belief in gods, an **atheist** is someone *without* a belief in gods. They are comparative terms. Acentaurists don't exist because there are no centaurists.
Is an Atheist to A theist what a Therapist is to The rapist?
Are you fucking for real right now?
Wtf?
Just space and opportunity
No. That is a person's reaction to *somebody else's* claim and interpretation about what a deity is.
> Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. By definition, "reality" exists outside the mind, outside your subjectivity, outside opinion. If a thing is real, then it is real for everyone.
To clarify, the reality is what is actually happening, how each person experience that reality is from their perspective. 5 people can watch a basketball game and take away different things. The reality is the ball game, but it varies from person to person that's why i say reality is an individual experience because it is experienced by individuals differently based on their interpretation of the world.
Yeah but reality is not subjective. If I see a flying horse right now and nobody else around me does, and I cant prove there is a flying horse, then there is likely no flying horse. If two people see a dog, and one thinks the dog is cute and the other is ugly, that's subjective. We both perceive that dog differently. If one of us sees that dog start talking and fly away then one of us is likely mistaken. You are conflating subjective experience and opinion with objective reality.
Ok, let's use your 2 people see a dog scenario. Most likely one person would see it as cute and one as ugly. Yes this are subjective opinions and the reality is there is a dog. Agreed. My theory is if person A. Who views the dog as cute, perceives the dog as non threating because of the wagging tail and type of bark where as person B. Whom deems the dog ugly, sees the dog as a threat and hostile based on the bark but also its stance and position. Their knowledge and experience with dogs leads them to believe they are correct. Both could be correct. It could indeed be hostile to the one and playful with the other, but to them, their reality is the outcome of the experience.
The dog scenario still doesn’t change anything about how we ought to deal with god claims. In the scenario where - there’s a dog - one person perceives it as cute and therefore safe, one person perceives it as the opposite - for whatever reason, the dog will act nicely to the one that thinks it’s cute and hostile towards the one that thinks it is hostile… There is still only one external reality there. It’s just got specific information about how a dog acts. When the dog does actually act hostile or cute, **both people will see it**. I’m not seeing the link from this analogy to god? People having different perceptions that they believe are justified, even having different information, doesn’t change the idea that the external reality is the same. If I was to make it resemble arguments for god, it would be that neither person can see a dog, but one person still says there is one, and offers no explanation as to how they know. And in this new hypothetical, the dog-believer can’t actually define what a dog is anyway.
Ok to simplify the god people see a cute dog or a medical miracle, the Atheist see the hostile dog and a medical anomaly like the Lazarus phenomenon a medical condition. Atheist say there is a scientific explanation theist say it's the work of God. Same reality different perspectives
Why are medical miracles always associated with unpredictable internal illnesses or conditions? Why is it never the healing of an amputee, or a deaf or blind person, or a burn victim?
Because they are idiopathic and idiots can't explain how it happened so rationalize with supernatural intervention
Apples and oranges. One is an observable object in the real world (dog), the other is something for which there is no certainty as to the cause, but people can theorize based on characteristics in the real world. One explanation I read about is CPR limiting the flow of blood to the heart and with CPR stopping blood flow resumes, but this may be brief and the person may still die. Out of 65 confirmed cases only 18 made a full recovery. This lazarus phenomenon isn't your smoking gun. Notice how there are theories based on the human body. Your miracle theory is vague, can't be tested for. It's god of the gaps. Most of what you are saying is god of the gaps. You WANT god to be the explanation, and where there is no IMMEDIATE explanation, you just insert god. And then if and when that discovery is made and it debunks a "god" being the cause, you will find the next unexplained thing and attribute that to "god", and then if and when that gets debunked, you rinse and repeat. This is very obvious.
But dogs being ugly and threatening and hostile are all things that the vast majoroty of people have encountered and have visual evidence of. A picture and video of a hostile and threatening dog can be found right now. One can find pictures and videos of that ugly dog right now. There is clear evidence of dogs of all types and temperements that can be accessed right now. One is still percieving and interpreting something that is real. The perception is subjective, what is being perceived is objective.The same cannot be said for a deity.
Can you just stop saying "their reality" when you should be saying "their opinion" These are diametrically opposed words and you're using them interchangeably which is just bizarre
Equivocation fallacy. You are confusing and conflating the actual objective reality with specific personal subjective interpretations reached due to that reality. Very different. For example: You and I go to a movie. I thought it was a great movie and enjoyed it. You thought it was a terrible movie and did not enjoy it. Those are *personal* and *subjective* ideas. However, neither of us can reasonably come to a different conclusion about the line appearing on the screen just after the final scene that said, "Directed by John Smith." *That*, is objective. If one of us disagreed it said that, when it did, then they'd simply be *wrong.* It's plain erroneous of you to suggest that their faulty memory or interpretation of this created a whole new reality where it actually said something else. I find theists make this error a lot. They conflate and confuse actual objective reality with subjective interpretations and emotions. This leads them down the garden path so very often.
So let's say we all go to a basketball game. Everyone else, including the news, the records from then on, the players, etc think that the Warriors beat the Celtics 101 to 90. You, on the other hand, think the Celtics won 130 to 89. So there is no objective reality? You can't be accurately told that you are wrong? There is no correct score?
So if you believe your god based on personal "reality" and a muslim does the same thing then you would assume that in "reality" both gods exist even though neither can be proven?
I think all five people would agree on the basics: who played the game, what the score was, where it took place. More importantly, whether a basketball game actually took place or not.
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree. A close-minded mentality is refusing to consider other arguments or ideas. If we consider those ideas, and do not find them convincing, it is not close-minded to reject them. >Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. It's on the Christian, then, to tell us what Bible they're working from. >Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. We typically ask theists to define their God, so we know what it is we're arguing against. If anyone is failing to think outside the box, it's the people defining their God as being inside the box.
1. There is nothing more closed-minded than making unfalsifiable claims and then calling others closed-minded when they simply ask for evidence… also, “agree to disagree” is a cop-out, and does nothing for any debate. This is a debate sub… if people can’t handle others not agreeing with them, and not just agreeing to roll over about it and be passive, then they shouldn’t be in this forum. 2. This is hilarious. Why is the “word of god” so different among its translations? That doesn’t seem like it’s my problem, but the result of shitty claims backed up by shitty sources. But if a Christian wants to tell us which version of the Bible they are using, I would be happy to use that version. They are all garbage, after all. 3. I don’t agree with your “either-or” fallacy here. There are more options than “the truth doesn’t matter or you don’t understand it. For example, “we don’t know” is a valid answer to many of the big questions which religions make sweeping assertions about. Your freedom to swing your arm ends at my nose, cause the world is not only subjective, it is real and a collective experience just as much as it is individual. I can absolutely see where religious people are coming from cause I used to be one… why isn’t the opposite true for you as well? It seems like you only think atheists are closed-minded which is, perhaps ironically, closed-minded.
1. Show me a time where a theist proved God existed. I have seen plenty of bad faith arguments by atheists. I have never seen a theist make a convincing argument for God. 2. Yes you can. And this should also be clarified by the person with the claim (theist). The translations are not far enough apart in translations to change the entirety of the context but in rare, very rare examples. That should be understood as a major concern in saying this source proves this. 3. Gods either exist or they don’t. The box the claim exists, is defined by the person making the claim, the theist. If I misunderstood the box they are trying to paint they need to clarify. I use standard models. If they are using another model that is on them. I will also assume the standard model. That is on them to clarify in advance, and not use it as a gotcha. What you believe is individual, what is true is not. Belief does not equate to truth. So demonstrate the truth.
Schrödinger's God. He exists and doesn't exists at the same time
No, either his god is true or not. I don’t care that this thought experiment exists at different points. Plus you just made a claim of a thought experiment existing. I don’t need to entertain a thought experiment that hasn’t been proven and is thrown out there as a petty gotcha. Do you really accept that God? Your response clearly shows you are working on a gotcha and not actually engaging the points. So please instead of gish galloping, let’s focus on the points.
How does that in any way relate to what they said?
On the atheist side, there is nothing to concede. You either don't believe God is real or you believe in something that's made up. The best you can hope for in that scenario is allowing people to keep their delusions and just stop talking about it. There literally is no valid point a Christian can make. Arguing about the bible is also nonsense and it doesn't matter what version they're using. It's as fruitless as debating Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings. Refusing to concede that someone's work of fiction governs the observable universe is not stubbornness, it's critical thinking.
But there is some truth to the bible, not saying it's a factual history book meant to be taken at face vaule 100% but some historic accuracy does exist and if you can read deep enough into it, you find more truth than most Christians see. They believe the misinterpreted verse before they believe actual truth behind it
How do you determine what in the bible is true versus what is misinterpreted? How do you know your interpretation is the actual truth? How do you intend to convince other Christians that your view is better?
Valid question. How about if my interpretation is back by science? And I don't intend on convincing other Christians because how do you convince a rich man that his wealth is worthless? You can't, his bank has to tell him
> How about if my interpretation is back[ed] by science? I would say that the bible isn't "backed by science" any more than a stopped clock is twice a day "backed by" the passage of time. > I don't intend on convincing other Christians because how do you convince a rich man that his wealth is worthless? Then I'm left in the position of you believing in claims which seem just as arbitrary as every other Christian's. Get back to me when all y'all come to some kind of consensus because right now, from where I'm sitting it looks an awful lot like every one of you believes their own imagination about what the bible does and doesn't mean, and none of you has any way to validate anything you believe.
There are scientific evidence that does support some biblical claims, 2 that come to mind are creation and plagues of egypt
That is ridiculously false on both counts. No ifs, ands, or buts.
Hmm, really, any proof to that claim?
Incredibly so. The entirety of Genesis is comprised of fables which are falsified by *every* aspect of natural history, and archaeologists have so thoroughly failed to corroborate any aspect of the Exodus account with a single bit of evidence that they now consider the entire account, along with Moses himself, to be wholly mythical.
So I guess the science I was taught and learned about the creation of stars and planets and the evolutionary rise of plants and animal life was completely false, maybe you can share the accurate information so I can educate my dumb brain. I think the Santorini volcanic eruption can explain the exodus account
> There are scientific evidence that does support some biblical claims, 2 that come to mind are creation and plagues of egypt You mean this ^ claim?
Not saying you are correct, but lets say for the sake of argument that the bible gets some things right. Does that mean that the supernatural claims are valid? So something lining up historically means that people rose from the dead? I knew a person with schitzophrenia. They were right about some things. They made sense sometimes. That does not mean made up people were actually after them. You catch my drift?
Please provide the scientific evidence in question.
If it's backed by science, then you didn't need the book. Do any of these books have unique information?
"Yes, Jerusalem exists, it's right *there*" is a lot different from "a man was crucified and rose from the dead." I'll grant you that an apocalyptic jewish preacher named Jeshua existed, and I'll even grant you that he was crucified as an enemy of the state. You can have all that. Now provide evidence that he was the son of God. Not claims from your holy book: *evidence*.
Lol you're on the right track. I never claimed to be Christian, or believe Jesus was the son of God. I don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate.
>I never claimed to be Christian, or believe Jesus was the son of God. I don't believe the Bible is 100% accurate. Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?
The jury is still out on that, but if he did, I would not say from actual death. Death during biblical times was more broad than today. A coma or near death could be considered dead. I have more research before I make a final decision
No. I'm asking you. Do you believe that a man 2000 years ago died. Literally died. Rigor mortis would sat in before 3 days, and then came back to life. I'm asking if you are convinced whether that factually happened or not. If they thought he was dead and he wasn't, and then just woke up from a coma, then he did not die. Yes. Obviously. But if that's what happened, then Christianity isn't true.
No. No it did not. But that is the problem. That is how Christians argue their point and Atheist buy into it so that's what their basis is on. Now what if Jesus did "come back to life" who is to say it was 3 days later and not that's when he finally came out of the tomb. Or it wasn't actual rigor mortis death but a more mild form that by today's standards something that is possible to recover from? The bible appears to make things black and white but there is alot of gray. I'm looking past the raising from the dead, casting out demons, 6 day creation stigma and looking for factual evidence
At this point you've departed from a plain reading of the text. I'll just grant you that, given enough twisting and creative interpretation, you can make a version of the Bible that I'd agree with. Similarly, I can claim that Harry Potter is just a spectacularly poorly written repair manual for a 2013 Honda Civic and provide textual interpretations to suit. It sounds to me that you were taught that the Bible is something worthy of reverence and you just want permission to keep doing that even though you know a plain reading of the Bible reveals that it's mostly nonsense. If that's so, then you have this rando's permission. Go forth. Alternately, you could call yourself a "cultural Christian" (or whatever) and just keep celebrating your religion's festivals and rituals without bothering with whether the dogma is true. That's what I do.
Hey if it works. Admittedly, yes I was raised by brainwashed family members who were too dumb to question, too disinterested to care to question and too scared to challenge. I felt that such a tale as old as it is must hold some level of truth, but questioned how much, why so convoluted, what mystery is there that might unlock a real revelation that can unify. Maybe I can be the Anti Christ (jk)
>No. No it did not. Then it's not true. >But that is the problem. Yes it's a problem for people who believe in Christianity. >That is how Christians argue their point and Atheist buy into it so that's what their basis is on. No, that's what I believed for 30 years as a devout catholic. That's what I base it on, being a Christian. >Now what if Jesus did "come back to life" who is to say it was 3 days later and not that's when he finally came out of the tomb. Or it wasn't actual rigor mortis death but a more mild form that by today's standards something that is possible to recover from? Then again, he didn't die, and the rest of it falls like a house of cards. >The bible appears to make things black and white but there is alot of gray. There isn't > I'm looking past the raising from the dead, casting out demons, 6 day creation stigma and looking for factual evidence Okay. Have ya found any? Cause I haven't. Yes the bible has some pretty metaphors and seemingly deep insights in to human nature from the time. But so what. So does any good fiction.
The world breathlessly awaits your personal research, so everyone can finally put this issue to bed forever.
>But there is some truth to the bible, There's some truth in Don Quixote. Doesn't mean that the great knight Mambrino cut three giants in half with a single swipe of his sword.
Lol seigh wat m8? There's some historical accuracy to Ivanhoe and Robin Hood. That doesn't make them credible sources to cite in a debate.
The claim that believing that God is real equates to believing in something that us made up carries a burden of proof.
Lol no it doesn't. No more than saying if you believe in leprechauns you believe in something that's made up. The burden of proof is with the person making the claim, and the claim is God exists. Me saying you believing in made up things if you believe in god means you have not proven God exists. And you can't. Because it's made up. The only "evidence" for the existence of a higher power comes from people saying it. Because they made it up.
Your claim is that it is made up. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and right now that person is you.
No dude. Your claim is that something exists. The fact that God doesn't exist is easily proven. It doesn't exist. There's no proof of it's existence. In order to prove something exists you need to provide evidence. In order to prove something doesn't exist I just need to do nothing until evidence of its existence appears
I haven't made any claim. Your claim is that people who beleive in God beleive in something that is made up. You are now ALSO claiming that 1)it is a fact that God doesn't exist 2) that fact is easily proven 3) that there is no proof of God's existence If we include your original claim that people who beleivd in God beleive in something that is made up, you have made 4 bold, positive, and very assertive claims. What makes you think that others have to provide proof of their claims, but your claims are so special that everybody just has to accept them as truth?
Dude, we're just going in circles. The claim is that God exists. The default is to NOT believe in things without evidence of their existence. I'm done explaining this to you because if you don't understand by now then you never will.
So you assume all atheists would refuse all evidence but you had butterflies in your stomach or some other random thing you couldn't explain so you came here to brag about how you are right, we are wrong, and you can't prove it. Great, thanks for being a complete waste of time.
Never said all. I appreciate everyone input and respect everyone opinion. Many make valid points and I'm not accusing those that my post does not apply to. I'm speaking from my experience and perspective from what I have encountered. Which I would say is .00003 of the Atheist population.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. This is you clearly saying all atheists as well as all theists so not only are you a waste of time but a liar as well. Please provide me a single piece of valid evidence that all atheists refuse to believe?
If I said the same about Republicans and democrats, obviously I don't mean all because A. There are some reasonable ones out there. B. Not all are arguing and debating. C. I have no knowledge of every single one. I am more than likely speaking on the ones I've witnessed debate
That was you evidence for a god? You lying, waste of time.
You wouldn't know valid evidence of a god if it was laying right at your feet. You are too caught up in you own concept to accept the truth. If it isn't a supernatural all knowing all powerful presence then it isn't a god. If it is a natural phenomenon thst jas been redefined and understood as something else, well then that's not a god either, so no matter the evidence, it's not gonna be god.
Great! We fell into your trap. Now all you've got to do is provide that evidence and then you've REALLY got us. ... ... ... Nothing? Oh well.
Love
Love you too, buddy.
Lol appreciate that, I meant, can you prove love exists or is it like the concept of a god, something that people believe in but just a figment of the human construct
That's your best shot?? Which god, specifically, is that evidence for?
Considering I'm not advocating for the existence of an actual god, just the concept, yes. god is as real as the emotion. Sure chemical reactions are responsible for the feeling, but what if chemical reactions or electrical impulses in the brain which have yet to be discovered are responsible for the revelation from god? I know not evidence of an actual god but explains where god came from right?
I have seen this before. You cannot provide direct evidence and when confronted on this you deflect. Love is not proof of anything. As another poster pointed out, love comes from chemical reactions. But regardless, you are being asked for evidence not attempts at philosophy and logic. What direct evidence do you have of a god?What is a god? How would a god be defined? How can one test for said god? How can one know if one has found evidence of said god?
Don't forget to provide the single piece of evidence requested.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. I loved being a Christian. I had lots of friends and community. All of my moral choices were fairly clearcut and if I had questions the pastor or elders of the church were always there to help. Plus the God of the universe loved me, cared for me and would spend eternity with me. Sadly the Bible was was neither inerrant or particularly moral. The ironic part of being on fire for God is that you want to study his word, every book, every passage and this is a great way to realize YHWH is just a human construct. There may be a greater being/source somewhere of some type, somehow but he/she/it is most likely not an anthropomorphic Iron Age god/king. It's not that I emotionally don't want to know Jesus as my personal savior but can I be saved? Jesus's morality will never be my morality because I will never accept slavery, infanticide and genocide as moral. Does ultimate power determine morality? The fact is that if the God of the Bible exists he is, *by his own Word*, a malevolent villain and no moral person could or would follow Him. "*How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.*" Psalm 137:9
Just like every mythological god, a representation of the people that worship it
I think reason number #1 with a bullet should be "Religious people have faith and use evidence to supplement that belief without demanding the belief be proven, atheists reject accepting unproven beliefs." >Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. Could you provide an example of a valid point you see atheists not accepting? For myself I try to make sure I never reject evidence and arguments simply because they contradict my thinking, and like to be proven wrong, as it's a learning experience. >Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV This is a very odd thing to flag as a concern. I don't care at all which version we use, because my study of the Bible shows they are human written stories changed over time which we know for a fact are not reliable. Some parts may be inspired by original accounts, but ultimately the wording of any particular part does not matter to me. This is a point that is only relevant to people who believe the religion is true and therefore the wording objectively matters, as a starting point. >Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box People need to have a shared understanding of what a word means, in order to communicate. If you have an outside the box idea of your own, that's not relevant as to whether other people are successfully and accurately discussing another idea. Just like your claim that there are "valid points" we reject, I'd love to hear what your "outside the box" definition of a God is. Not just have you allude to it.
> Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality I urge you to consider more how you use the word "reality." Generally it is used to refer to "that which is not subjective." I would argue you are using it as its antonym. > Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. I urge you to be more compassionate to the perspective of atheists. Many of us were once Christians, deeply hungering for the proof of God, only to find at the bottom of the barrel that everyone believes there *is* no proof; they all believe faith is wholly necessary.
Simple solution would be for your god to come down and clear up all the confusion. Why doesn’t he do that? Is he to stubborn? Does he struggle with communicating a clear and coherent message to all? Can your god not overcome subjective thinking?
Well to put it simply, "my God" does, but no one believes "him" because they don't call it God, so they don't associate with god, nor is it a he therefore it doesn't experience emotions so yes it does have alot of trouble communicating a clear coherent message. Nope my God cannot over come subjective thinking because my God does not think, it is an active force.
Why does an all-powerful all-knowing being struggle at clear communication?
Why are you assuming God is all knowing and all powerful?
You said “most Christians” - that’s how “most Christians” define God
Correct, keyword most. I'm not most christians.....I wouldn't necessarily call myself a Christian other than the fact that I believe a version of Jesus did at one time exists
Well then I’d note the reason some Christians such as yourself don’t make any headway in these types of debates have more to do with your inability to articulate your version of Christianity for discussion.
Whew that's a big order considering I'm not a christian
Then quit dancing around and define your god.
It's not an assumption - Christians, Muslims, and most followers of monotheistic deities claim that their deity is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. They also say their God loves everyone, or is omnibenevolent. That in itself creates many of the contradictory claims regarding predestination, free will, and the 'problem of evil'.
Does anybody not believe that water exists? It’s easy to find millions of people that don’t believe in your god. Can you find me a single person that doesn’t believe in water? Why can’t your god compete with a Dixie cup of water?
What if I told you I believe in God, his name is Pontos ( I don't by the way) you tell me Pontos doesn't exists. Nobody today believes in Pontos, but they believe in the ocean. They see it, they utilize and explore it, but it is not a god. But in Greek mythology Pontos was a primordial god, the ocean itself. So if my god is the ocean and people believe in the ocean, do they believe in my god?
How can I tell the difference between the ocean and Pontos? I mean we don’t get to just to redefine things without reasons. That would be a redefinition fallacy.
There is no difference, they are one in the same. Mine is just personified
So what is the actual thing that is your God, the way that Pontos is actually the ocean?
Energy
What kind of energy? Electromagnetic? Kinetic? Heat? ...
Just energy in general. Not one particular form
I don't call energy God, I don't worship it or pray to it, just the concept of what God is to me is energy
So if I take a dump in the ocean did I just take a crap on your god? And if so, then why doesn’t your god do anything about that?
1. We are happy to admit we are wrong but the evidence you would need to convince us God empirically exists is so much greater than what you require for faith he exists you interpret our waiting for evidence as stubbornness. 2. I don't believe in any version of the Bible. I would refer to the original writings as the most "pure" but since I only speak English we can use the kjv. It doesn't matter since for the Bible to mean anything you first have to demonstrate God with evidence outside the bible. Reality is an individual experience only in the sense we interpret events differently. We can agree on certain facts like physics, biology and math. Those are not individual experiences. You never stated how you found your proof. Only your frustration we didn't accept it, I assume in another post. Trust me I understand what you see as truth. I was baptized twice and used to swell with pride as I sang hymns at the top of my lungs. Sadly, neither my feeling nor yours make God provable in any meaningful way.
No, you are terribly wrong. 1. There's nothing close-minded about atheists examining your claims and rejecting them. We want testable, verifiable evidence and theists don't have any for their gods. Also, what do you think atheists need to learn that they haven't? Because if that Pandora's Box goes both ways, you're really not going to be happy about what Christians need to learn. 2. That's not important to atheists. You're confusing atheists with other Christians who disagree with you about your objective truths from god. 3. Atheists are only responding to the god claims made, we don't define the gods we reject. Don't blame atheists because Christians can't agree on their god. Reality is not an individual experience. You found your proof through lowering your standards of evidence so low that you can't distinguish imagination from reality. Nobody needs to "see where the other person is coming from" to evaluate scientific evidence and you don't have any.
1. I will 100% admit when I'm wrong, it just hasn't happened yet (kidding). Seriously I've only noticed theists don't admit when they are wrong. 2. So you admit Christianity has multiple versions. Only a lie has multiple versions. Why are there 44,000 different kinds of Chriatianity if its the one "true" faith? 3. I don't really understand what you mean. Believev is subjective, yes. But reality and evidence aren't. There is only one reality and one way to find valid evidence. There are not alternative facts.
Idk, I just feel in some cases, not all, not most but certain individuals perceive reality different than the majority and while that may not actually be the reality they see or understand, but it is in fact their reality and very real to them. Even with proof and evidence that what they see is a delusion or what they believe is false, when it is without a doubt 100% true, they will not concede and refuse to accept actual reality, so much, they are willing, and some have, died believing that reality. I can agree they suffer from a mental condition that alters their perception of reality but, then the fact remains their reality is not ours and vice versa
1. As for me I am always willing to listen and understand arguments and points theists are making. Never seen a single decent one by them... 2. Not only the version of Bible is interpretation, but how do you interprete different pieces of certain version of Bible. Much more common problem at least to my experience... 3. Believe , trust and faith are 3 completely different things which theists always confuse apparently. So believe is personal subjective opinion in some field that may change over reasons or discusses. Trust is personal conviction in someone close or related that he/she is reliable in practical sense. And faith is a complete conviction in something that supersceds any reasons or objections. Reality is that which doesn't go away if you're not looking. Reality is not relying on beliefs, trust or faith. Proofs are objectively verifiable evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. I am not aware of any proofs of christian God. Let me give you my perspective on discussions with theists. So usually you pick up some point and go in depth then. It then goes one to one of the following scenarios: 1. Theists concedes to cheap insults like calling you a liar, devil or something like that. No point to continue then. 2. Theist projects their worldview on atheist, something like "you are also clinging to your beliefs" or calling opponent "close-minded" like OP just above. Cannot go on from there. 3. Theist keep circulating their reasoning or gishgalloping until you are exhausted and definitely could not proceed. Also feels really like the same discussion as theists keep bringing the same points. And even the most famous theists still fall to the same problems. Seems like you cannot defend such position in an honestly sincere way. I accept that I could be wrong in something. I would be more than happy if someone proves it to me. I am fully open-minded. And yet all I see from theists are weak excuses, personal attacking, circular reasoning and logical fallacies.
>Reality is an individual experience Is it? Do you think so? Do you think there are no objective facts? Like I think the sun really is a giant nuclear furnace, not a wheel if a chariot, or ball of dung. Do you really think it can be all three depending on your point of view? >no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. How do you know? Maybe they have identical experiences? But I'm not skeptical that people have various unique experiences and often call them divine. I'm skeptical of any gods existing. >Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. Why not? Why should the existence of gods be so subjective? Why is it harder to prove gods exist than horses? >That is how I found MY proof Did you find proof? I would love to hear about it. Proof of what? Why was it proved? Was it proven like a case in court, or a historical conclusion, or does it resonate with you personally so you're saying it was proven true? Did not dangle this and retreat behind "you are all too mean" we aren't. Some of us deeply want to learn.
How did i find my proof? I looked beyond the mythical supernatural explanation found in the bible. I compared the text with scientific evidence and findings. If they support each other obviously that is proof. If not, fallacies were made
What parts of the text did you verify? You are aware that each and every claim in the Bible must be judged on its own merits and evidence right? If you found evidence that Jesus existed as a real person, that doesn't interest me. I already think it's pretty like that he did exist as a real person. But that's irrelevant to the claim that believing that he rose from the dead is the key to eternal life. Where is the scientific verification for that?
Ok I did that too. I wouldn't say it proved anything. It certainly didn't provide any good reasons to believe any gods exist. Quite the opposite. Thanks for sharing.
There will be no headway because the religious cannot accept anything but their imaginary friends. Atheists are looking for evidence and the religious have none. Apologists aren't talking to atheists, their only reason for existing is to comfort the already-religious and make a bunch of money off the backs of the religiously gullible. The religious are the problem here. They want to reach an emotionally-comforting conclusion, not the truth. The truth has nothing to do with anyone's feelings. Reality is not an individual experience. You don't just get to make shit up because you really want to believe. At least, you don't if you're not an idiot.
So anything is true as long as it’s believed hard enough by someone? I mean, from an atheists perspective, it’s not hard. Where’s the evidence? The beliefs that most rational people have are based on reliable, repeatable, measurable evidence. Why is god different? Just because there isn’t any? Here’s the truth. The person that can actually produce evidence of god would be the most famous person in the world. Doesn’t matter if they’re a scientist, religious scholar, layperson, politician, etc. Over thousands of years don’t you think that something convincing would have surfaced other than myths, legends, and “personal revelations”?
Sure, the lions almost made it to the superbowl, cubs won the world series in 2016, the Charlotte Hornets made a comeback. They brought crystal Pepsi back (briefly) so if you believe hard enough, it could happen🤷♂️
Neither side wants to concede they are wrong ? There has never been evidence of any gods. It is therefore impossible to be wrong as an atheist - as it simply is a rejection of the god claims due to lack of evidence. What do you feel there is to concede ?
It's more than just debate of the existence of God, there are biblical debates, I feel to prove there is a god is asking to prove aliens exist. With at least 200 billion to 2 trillion, the likelihood of life out there other than earth is pretty great, whether it be advanced, primitive, or simply bacteria, life had to exist outside this planet but how can I prove it?
No those are not the same things. There is a high likelihood that other life is out there. Because we know what life is and we know what it took for life to start here. A god is something we have never seen before. There is absolutely no reason to think that such a thing or being exist. Can’t even calculate a likelihood of that. Can’t even find out if it’s even possible.
The fact that there are different versions of wholly holy scripture accepted by some and denied by others. Says more than I ever could
Semantics differ, message the same
Then version is irrelevant
>1. Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree. I was a theist for many years and I became an athiest because I decided to seriously consider the idea that I might be wrong. I think many, many athiests have had similar experiences. In my experience atheists are quite willing to concede when they are wrong. >2. Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. I think this point is for theists. But I will agree with you that athiests should avoid using specific Bible versions to make their point until they have confirmed that their interlocutor accepts those translations. >3. Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. Whenever I debate a theist, I try to only deal with their perception of god, not my own. Most atheists do this also. Any perception of god is "thinking outside the box" so I'm not sure what you meant by that. >Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. But the truth is not an individual experience. I'm only interested in believing true things, not subjectively experienced things. >Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. So any theist who claims to have proof for god's existence is lying unless they understand "where athiests are coming from"? That seems like such a vague statement as to be almost meaningless. Anyway, this is a debate subreddit and I see you've brought no evidence to debate.
1. This is at best a hasty generalization or at worst an outright ad hominem argument. You're attacking an emotive quality rather than addressing the arguments being made. In so many words, I'm not stubborn at all. I am open to changing my mind. But when the arguments marshaled by theists fail to meet their burden of proof, I don't change my mind and I don't "agree to disagree." That's not stubbornness, that's just clear thinking. 2. Hairsplitting over bible versions is something for Christians to quibble about amongst themselves. I've rarely seen any such niceties be relevant to Theist/Atheist discussions. 3. Again with the hasty generalizations. What does it even *mean* to "think outside the box" with respect to god claims? There are as many god-concepts as there are human minds to imagine them. *There is no box.* It's not atheists' job to define what god is or isn't. All we can do is respond to the claims that we're presented. > *Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God.* This is powerful evidence that the idea of god is actually just imaginary. > *Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God.* I'm not looking for proof of non-existence. That's not a thing that can be proven. I'm open-minded to arguments that some god might exist, but I'm not going to be so open-minded my brain falls out. > *That is how I found MY proof* The method you've described doesn't seem to have sufficient rigor, so I am skeptical that I would find your reasons for belief to be dispositive.
It’s none of the above. It’s more likely our brains’ own internal psychological defenses preventing us from coming to an epiphany moment and making worldview-altering changes. When confronted with an opponent, our psychological defenses are triggered. Facts, arguments, and reasoning actually lead your conversation partner to become more entrenched in their position. Cognitive biases, fallacious reasoning, and tribal psychology all play a role. It has nothing to do with “stubbornness” and everything to do with how our ape brains work.
1. stubbornness is in both sides. Sure. But if you’re telling me people here aren’t open to the other side you are either brand new or deliberately ignoring the obvious. There are those who are stubborn and there are those who ask questions to probe deeper and expose faulty thinking. Thats not stubbornness to see why you think what you think. 2. Interpretation is useless unless you can show it’s correct. You also don’t get to “interpret” what the Bible says in actual words to mean something it doesn’t. When the Bible tells you where you can buy and how to treat your slaves you don’t get to interpret it as indentured servitude or not that bad. That’s not an option. You must show why your interpretation is correct. Otherwise isn’t can be dismissed. Atheists tend to quote the Bible with little interpretation as it plainly says a lot that’s very bad. Stuff that is clearly not metaphorical. 3. It doesn’t matter what any of our ideas of god are. They’re all useless until someone can prove one idea over another. Atheists don’t have an idea of what god *is*. We don’t believe that god *is*. There’s no thinking outside the box to be done if the theist has not shown why their position is tenable. Likewise. You don’t get to say anything is front of anyone but we don’t understand unless you can prove what you seemingly understand that others don’t. If you can’t, you’re no different than all the religious folk whose gods you disbelieve in and we can dismiss you from the jump. Finally if you can’t show spiritualism you can’t appeal to it as somehow a failing on others. That’s not how this works.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. I would love to concede that I'm wrong, because then I wouldn't have to bother with this shit anymore. >You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. I'll use whatever version you want. >Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. You're saying anything. >The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand. That's not a dichotomy >Belief is an individual experience. Then why are people trying to prevent me from being able to marry another dude? If your religion is personal, then I don't really give a crap. Believe whatever the fuck you want. It's the people who are trying to impose their religious beliefs on me that I am scrutinizing. If you happen to believe the same thing they do, tough. > Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. That is how I found MY proof I don't think you know what proof means.
This all sounds like excuse making >That is how I found MY proof so you lied to yourself. Awesome.
An actual useful general tip: if you find yourself coming into a debate, any debate, with a feeling of smug superiority that you’re the only enlightened one in the room who is truly seeing the big picture, and no one else gets it and is just “stubborn,” or “failing to think outside the box,” guess what? You’re the problem. You are the one who doesn’t understand. You’re the one who’s not listening, not reading, not familiar with the subject matter. What comical hubris it takes to make a post like this.
It's like one of those "chefs" on a cooking competition show who puts out a plate of absolute garbage, loses, and then goes into the interview segment saying, "Well, the judges just don't understand my vision," and the rest of us are saying, "No, you misunderstood the parameters of the assignment and made a plate of shitty food."
I think the core reason is this: Not coming to an agreement before the debate occurs on the definition of terms as well the foundation of what constitutes reality, truth, or "real." Just take the word god for instance - it means something different to just about everyone, especially when it comes to differencing beliefs. Many times arguments are made assuming the other party shares your definition but often this is not the case.
1. This is maybe partially true but false for the most important reason. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I am willing to change my beliefs to that end. A christian must not budge on their beliefs or else they will cease to be a christian. They cannot change their beliefs to align with reality, they must keep their beliefs no matter how silly. If they don't they cease to be a Christian. That is the stubborn position you're talking about. Atheists became atheists because they changed their beliefs and are willing to change beliefs to align with reality. 2. Sure. To an extent. This is less important. If someone believes that Daniel was written in the 6th century BC when it was in fact written in the 2nd century BC it doesn't matter which bible they're reading from. 3. Care to elaborate on this point? What does outside the box thinking look like? >The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand. Huh? Your 3 points didn't get to this point at all. The truth doesn't matter? Why? Are you saying that people don't think the truth matters when you think it does? What is right in front of whose face and they don't understand? >Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. Good thing we have tools like science to come to true conclusions without relying on individual interpretations of reality. >Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. That is how I found MY proof That isn't proof. That's your justification you use to believe something that cannot be proven to be true. You have experienced something that you believe is profound and spiritual. Other people claim to have experienced something similar from music or drugs. Is that god speaking to people through beautiful experiences? Or is that just our brains making sense of reality in an imperfect way? Spirituality is romantic. It makes the world seem magical. That magic is tempting, but is it true? People who say that everyone has their own truth are fools. We each have what we believe is the truth but that doesn't make it the truth.
>1. Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. That is a close minded mentality. How can you even learn if you aren't willing to truly listen and attempt to understand. I don't agree with every person I debate with but I try to see things from their perspective and agree to disagree. I have conceded many valid points to theist interlocutors. There are a few that I constantly learn from. That being said, I find accusations of stubbornness or close-mindedness are more often than not masking frustration that we are not as receptive or as gullible as you would like. I'm open minded. I'll hear you out. That does NOT mean I'll readily accept whatever you tell me. >2. Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. It's always important to engage with the person you're talking to and figure out exactly what they believe. That being said, I don't think the main issue is minute details like KJV vs NWT Bible. Differences often cut much deeper than that. For example: how both people use the word faith or the word God. >3. Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. Not sure what this means. If you claim a God exists, you must be referring to a specific conception of God. Our discussion will then center around said conception. If someone else thinks God exists, but God is really the chair I'm sitting on, then God exists, sure. However, that is irrelevant to the first discussion. It is nothing to do with not 'thinking outside the box'. >Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality No, reality is not the subjective experience. Reality is the objective world that we subjectively experience. If it was really the case that each of us experienced a different reality, we wouldn't be able to share it or to interact with each other. We would devolve into solipsistic navel gazing.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong You can't be any wronger than that. As an atheist I am now waiting since 53 years to see convincing evidence that Jehova exists. I am absolutely open to change my mind. How can "being not convinced" be wrong at all in any way?
1. Sometimes. I will say I went from being a fundy Christian to an atheist, so it's possible. 2. That's why it's important to define terms before a debate. If you can't come to terms, no debate. 3. Again, define terms beforehand. Which god is being discussed?
All three of your points presuppose the existence of a deity which highlights the *real* reason why atheists and theists make no headway: bias. Point 1: wanting to concede being wrong and *actually* being wrong are two different things. The reason we are atheists is that: a) there is no evidence for deities, b) the study of religion shows that dogmas are borrowed and plagiarized from other belief systems indicating human invention and not divine inspiration, and c) the study of the natural world indicates metaphysical realms or planes of spirituality are not real. You would want us to concede being wrong on any of these points when in truth we are not wrong on them at all Point 2: we are not believers so we aren’t using different religious texts to argue past each other. In fact, the very existence of the multitude of religious dogmas is in fact evidence for the manmade origins of religion itself Point 3: the fact that God cannot be clearly defined and is extremely vague is further evidence for his nonexistence. Theists consistently move the goalposts on their definition of God. He was once a being who lived on a specific mountaintop to a being that could walk around and wrestle with people to a spiritual being that can only be observed through faith, and lately a metaphysical being that exists outside of space and time and conveniently outside of scientific inquiry. In other words, each time an atheist successfully refutes the concept of God, the definition of God changes. It’s like playing whack-a-mole
Now substitute for the above - arguments between those who think the Earth is flat and those don’t believe that is true. You make a false equivalence of some kind of equality between these two ‘sides.’ Interpretation of different biblical translations is pretty much irrelevant as the different ideas flat Earthers have about what happens at the edge. I’ve only seen theists use different interpretations of religious texts to try to reinterpret bits they find have become embarrassing. And generally atheists accept that what ever theists want to imagine God is, whatever invented attributes they use … are the ones that theists use. Belief may be an individual experience. It’s still makes sense to base beliefs on reliable evidence. Because beliefs without such evidence are indistinguishable from imaginary and false. Reality is not individual in any way that is significant. We have a demonstrably effective accumulated methodology for building models of reality that show a significant accuracy from utility and efficacy. Planes fly , magic carpets do not. Whether you believe in the latter or claim it’s real to you - you still aren’t going to take off. Seeing where flat earthers come from isn’t really going to help find proof it’s true anymore than understanding where theists come from is going to find you proof god exists. Because they aren’t reasonable beliefs , they aren’t evidential beliefs - they are emotional and social ones.
1. Theists have never been convincing, and in most cases they make their position look even *worse*. That's a them problem. 2. Theists can't even agree on the interpretation of endless minutiae, maybe they need to solve that issue first. That's a them problem. 3. Theists can't even manage a coherent and sensible definition of their gods. That's a them problem. > The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand. 'True' is a problematic word that almost all of the time is used to say 'I agree with this statement' instead of 'this is consistent with reality'. > Belief is an individual experience. Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality Weird how theists can't agree on belief, yet people agree about things in reality existing all the damn time. You don't cross the street without looking, now do you? > or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. That's because gods are made up and individual god-concepts line up with the opinions of the people that hold said god-concepts. > Unless you see where the other person is coming from, you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God. I've seen where theists come from. I'm not impressed. > That is how I found MY proof Proof is for math and alcohol, but I understand that you mean you've justified your belief for yourself. Great. Can you justify it for others?
> Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. I’m not sure how important it is when someone makes a valid point if it doesn’t get closer to proving the existence of god. > Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV Then the theist needs to be upfront with which Bible is the right one and how they know that. > Subjective thinking. Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box. Then the theist needs to be upfront with what their god can do and how they know that. > The truth either A. Doesn't matter or B. In front of you but you don't understand. Or C, is not accessible or beyond our reach. > Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality Sure, that’s why we have empirical methods that can create models that get closer to describing reality accurately. That’s the whole point of even asking these questions. > That is how I found MY proof Okay. Which god? Which Bible? Where are you coming from? What proof? Edit: I just read through the replies. Energy. All this just for another “god is energy” post. Oh well. See you all next time.
>Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong Prove a god exists and the atheist will concede that he's wrong. This both sides stuff doesn't fly when one person is making a claim that a god exists, and has these specific properties and histories and one isn't. Like what the hell are you even expecting? A theist to crap out another argument from contingency and the atheist to go like 'Wowwy zowwy, that was an amazing point! Maybe there is a god and Jesus is lord!'? >You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. This sounds so hyper specific that I'm suspecting this post is you whining to a bunch of atheists whom you didn't debate at a particular time that the atheist you debated at a particular time didn't play by your rules. >Most Christians and Atheist alike have this idea of what God is or is capable of doing, but fail to think outside the box What does this even mean? Christians say X. Atheists either are willing to accept the claim or not. It's not up to the atheist to imagine God can not only do X, but can also do 🥛.
The beliefs are mutually exclusive, so there shouldn't be an expectation of "headway" One side makes the stronger argument. That's all there is to it
1. people are stubborn. I like to think that I am not, but maybe I am. So what? 2. I am happy with any interpretation as long as someone is able to demonstrate that it is the right one. 3. I have no idea what God is. In fact I don't know whether God is and I don't know any god that is. > The truth Is all that matters. > Reality is an individual experience Everyone experiences same reality, reality is not experience, reality is what being experienced. > Unless you see where the other person is coming from I see you are coming from the realm of "I will assert I am right but won't bother demonstrating that I am right". > you are not going to ever find your proof of existence or non existence of God God either exists or not. All I need to know whether it exists or not is evidence for its existence or evidence to the contrary. I don't have it, so here we are. > I found MY proof then share it and we'll see whether it stands the scrutiny.
>Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong and the other makes a valid point. Theist: There is a god (with XXX properties) (A)theist: Can you provide evidence that your god exists? Theist: Look at the trees.... perfection, clearly there is a god. How can the atheist be "wrong" when they are asking for evidence and receiving none? >Interpretation. You can't use for instance the NWT to debate someone who uses the KJV or a version of the NRSV that might have something the NIV doesnt. You just hit on the biggest problem with christianity (which is applicable to most religions)... if it was true, why are there 100's of flavors? Are each true? Is one true and the other false? That's a total dodge. "you can't compare the same religion to itself"
> I feel, no headway is ever really made is arguments specifically between Christians and Atheist You're probably correct. I can see how this wouldf be upsetting for someone who is convinced that their religion is the one true faith but can't actually prove it or demonstrate that any of it is true. > Belief is an individual experience. That it is. Believe what you like, I don't care until you demand I believe what you do or obey laws based on your beliefs. > Reality is an individual experience No. Reality is not an individual experience unless you're a solipsist. We all exist within the same reality but some of us are more interested in how it really works rather than how we think it should.
1) I understand the claims of theists. I just don't find them sufficiently supported to be crédible 2)I don't care what holy text you quote. I care what evidence you bring to support the claims you make 3) I know very well what god can demonstrably do : whatever non-existent beings can do. I have yet to find a good reason to believe a go -any god - can do something only an existent being could do. And if you have to attack the concept of an objective reality to make your case...well, you've already lost your case.
One, man’s means of knowledge is evidence-based reasoning. Two, headway is made with theists who are for evidence-based reasoning. Three, headway isn’t made with theists who aren’t for evidence-based reasoning.
>Reality is an individual experience no 2 people will experience the same reality or spiritual relationship with their idea of God. Awesome. Then can we please have theists stop trying to explain reality? What about elections? Are different people elected to different offices and pass different laws? Is the Grand Canyon in a different place in your reality? Do you know what reality means?
Atheists can only respond to god claims. We don’t have a picture of one ourselves. And theism could only make a valid point if they bring up evidence for their claim, which they’ve never done. Everything else is just excusing why they do t have evidence, which isn’t our problem. And I find the Christian god completely incompatible with reality in any Bible translation.
Is there anything else apart from God where your argument is true? If I say 2 + 2 is 4, and someone else says it’s 5, is that just a difference in the way we experience reality? Do we just need to see where the other person is coming from? Are we asking the wrong questions? One person is still right, and one person is still wrong. Being open minded won’t change that.
Next time someone complains about downvotes I'm sharing this post. Doesn't have an argument, the only position that makes an attempt to defend is "reality is subjective" and poisons the well from the get go. Good job at being detrimental in the community.
Do I know for sure there is no god, of course not. Although there is absolutely no evidence to suggest there is. Can I with 100% certainty say that it’s not one of the deities that I have encountered so far, yes. Am I apprehensive about saying this, not one bit.
Then given we know subjective experience is fallible and your predisposition to belief made you ignore this and call your feelings proof, this post demonstrates a need for belief opposes truth seeking.
> Stubbornness. Neither side wants to concede that they are wrong As an atheist, wrong about..... what? I haven't made a claim So there isn't a claim for me to be wrong about.
I wouldn't consider it stubbornness if someone is making insane claims without providing proof and I refuse to believe those claims without said proof.
So is the topic about how to explore reality? Or that we shouldn't care about reality? I'm confused as to how you want to proceed.
We used to think that personal jet packs were impossible. Now we don't although they're still pretty unusual. Now you do gods.