Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums

[baumgarten]

It seems that the premise, at least from the theists point of view, is that the atheist makes the claim that the foundations of theism are groundless - this leads to an automatic defense of principles.

This in itself is fine, of course. But how many who participate in the ensuing exchange are actually interested in understanding what the other has to say? Most of the arguments posed by atheists against the existence of God (and many of them are excellent arguments) are really begun from the assumption that the theist is wrong and must be corrected. For most theists, the attack comes on an important part of life, even a part of one's identity. How many here are actually willing to question such a fundamental assumption as the existence of God?

A theist however may not contend the foundations of science (they may contend what those foundations are capable of indicating - like for instance a theist may state the origins of the human mind and the universal creation are beyond the purview of empiricism)
This is evidenced by a theist having the opportunity to work within science, but the atheist doesn't have the opportunity to work within religion.

That's true. Most atheists would not want to take advantage of that opportunity if they had it, anyway.

In other words the theist has the tendency to be automatically dehumanized by atheists

I don't believe that all discussions of religious epistemology must end in frustration. Some tactics and attitudes employed in these discussions, however, will make it inevitable.

 

[lightgigantic]

"Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums"

Yes it is!
You cant debate intelligently with people who cling to pre intellectual reasoning, no matter how they try to dress it up with pseudointellectual superfluousness.

classic example of instant dehumanization (or the pre- ad hom). Like for instance how what is your initial response to

You cant debate intelligently with people who cling to pompous intellectual reasoning, no matter how they try to dress it up with superfluousness empirical floweriness

(BTW - I am obviously being rhetorical so don't bother answering this as a challenge - it will just lead to ad homs)

 

[lightgigantic]

Fire

Dualism is a very basic concept. Children are tuned to it more than adults, it seems the natural way we are evolved in that we simply don't need to know how complex things work in order to see it's value.

I have posted links to the philosophy of dualism and its practical application in neurology - none of the sources were children

In the movie where the dad and son change bodies is a concept everyone can understand because of dualism. But it is obviously impossible since the neural network in both brains remains the same after the change. To accomodate both personalities and unique brain functions, there would obviously need to be a dramatic rework of each brain, not a soul.

If you read the links you can see that dualism has more applications than the plots for fiction - while you may disagree with it, you cannot disagree with it on the grounds of rationality by posting alternatives that are merely tentative suggestions

Godless

LG, the problem is not that atheist or theist lack the intelligence to debate without ad-hom, the relaxed attitude of this forum allows to some extent all the ad-hom, and minor flame war to flare up time to time, it's something that works on both sides releasing frustration on one another, do to the anonimity of the forum, and the relaxed attitude ad-hom is usual around this site, sciforums is not a formal debate website

Other then that don't bitch or will lose the priviledge of calling an idiot, an idiot! when it's warranted

ok - the nest time you display the charm of a turd in a thermos I will keep it in mind

Science is a process for finding out how things work. What process is there in religion? If a process exists, why do religions disagree with one another? How does one "work within religion?"

Disagreements within science are ressolved by discussions that don't innvolve ad homs

The reason for the nonexistence of a decent debate is really simple:

Both group have different standards. One uses facts, science and history, the other uses superstition, faith, myth.

So obviously, there can not be a decent debate until they start to use the same standards....

Your argument makes sense if one beg s the question by assuming that science does not borrow plumes from superstition, faith and myth and that religion is incapable of relying on repeatable methodologies of perception - in other words you exhibit your deeply ingrained inability to actually discuss the topic

Every question I've ever asked you was ignored, lightgigantic. You have no place criticizing how debates are handled.

probably beacause you ad hommed

I see. So there is this meme floating around sci-forums that is promoting fallacy (ad-hom specifically). Why do you think it's so infectious and what's your strategy to handle it?

Any suggestions yourself?

 

[Oniw17]

You already said that you've had intelligent debates with prince james and gordon. So it's not impossible.

 

[lightgigantic]

You already said that you've had intelligent debates with prince james and gordon. So it's not impossible.

So perhaps we can examine what it was that made those debates possible and the other debates impossible

 

[Syzygys]

by assuming that science does not borrow plumes from superstition, faith and myth

Please feel free to prove your point. I mean with EVIDENCE...

By the way I don't mind going down to your level and pick faith, myth,etc. as a standard.

So what is your religion? I will also pick one and we will debate without logical or scientifical approach whose gods (I will make sure my religion has a plurality of gods) are the better/stronger/prettier...

So are you ready? What is your religion?

I will give you first person evidence for my religion, also throw in a few myths and legends. The use of logic will be absolutelly FORBIDDEN, we will only go on superstition and ad hominems....

I bet my gods will beat yours!!!

 

[lightgigantic]

Please feel free to prove your point. I mean with EVIDENCE...

By the way I don't mind going down to your level and pick faith, myth,etc. as a standard.

So what is your religion? I will also pick one and we will debate without logical or scientifical approach whose gods (I will make sure my religion has a plurality of gods) are the better/stronger/prettier...

So are you ready? What is your religion?

I will give you first person evidence for my religion, also throw in a few myths and legends. The use of logic will be absolutelly FORBIDDEN, we will only go on superstition and ad hominems....

I bet my gods will beat yours!!!

hardly an inspiring request for intelligent discussion .....
of course you are making wonderful sense according to the previous outline

Your argument makes sense if one beg s the question by assuming that science does not borrow plumes from superstition, faith and myth and that religion is incapable of relying on repeatable methodologies of perception - in other words you exhibit your deeply ingrained inability to actually discuss the topic

 

[lightgigantic]

Baum

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
It seems that the premise, at least from the theists point of view, is that the atheist makes the claim that the foundations of theism are groundless - this leads to an automatic defense of principles.
”
This in itself is fine, of course. But how many who participate in the ensuing exchange are actually interested in understanding what the other has to say? Most of the arguments posed by atheists against the existence of God (and many of them are excellent arguments) are really begun from the assumption that the theist is wrong and must be corrected. For most theists, the attack comes on an important part of life, even a part of one's identity. How many here are actually willing to question such a fundamental assumption as the existence of God?

Do you think that it is impossible to reach a point of conclusion regarding the nature of god's existence/nonexistence?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
In other words the theist has the tendency to be automatically dehumanized by atheists
”
I don't believe that all discussions of religious epistemology must end in frustration. Some tactics and attitudes employed in these discussions, however, will make it inevitable.

lol

 

[KennyJC]

hardly an inspiring request for intelligent discussion .....

How ironic. Do I really have to go back and compile a list of LG quotes?

 

[lightgigantic]

How ironic. Do I really have to go back and compile a list of LG quotes?

If you do I also hope you provide the contexts they were made in to determine if they were responses to ad homs

 

[KennyJC]

I'm not talking about ad homs or responses to ad homs, I am talking about comments which in general have been far from inviting intelligent discussions which you seem to keen to participate in.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Any suggestions yourself?

So far I have only seen success in these methods of handling a meme:

* Destroy all the effected people. Pros: Immediate results. Cons: Big price.
* Educate all the effected people. Pros: Sustainable results. Cons: Very slow.
* Only and consistently respond to the part of the message that is not the meme. Pros: It becomes a meme in itself. Cons: The positive meme gets associated with a leader and one failure to walk the walk can lead to reversion.

 

[John99]

lightgigantic, was there a contest for the most annoying avatar?

 

[baumgarten]

Do you think that it is impossible to reach a point of conclusion regarding the nature of god's existence/nonexistence?

Why shouldn't it be possible? All anyone needs is a little earnest dedication. Of course, you can expect ulterior motives to yield ulterior endings.

 

[superluminal]

Why shouldn't it be possible? All anyone needs is a little earnest dedication. Of course, you can expect ulterior motives to yield ulterior endings.

I disagree. As long as humans are subject to emotionally influenced, non-critical thinking, there will be earnest people who conclude the exact opposite from each other with no ulterior motives or agenda.

 

[baumgarten]

I disagree. As long as humans are subject to emotionally influenced, non-critical thinking, there will be earnest people who conclude the exact opposite from each other with no ulterior motives or agenda.

In terms of philosophical inquiry, I would hardly call non-critical thinking 'dedicated'. You have a point, though.

 

[superluminal]

In terms of philosophical inquiry, I would hardly call non-critical thinking 'dedicated'. You have a point, though.

Well, I've met some highly dedicated non-critical thinkers!

 

[TheVisitor]

Both sides are so polarized.
Science refutes God, and religion refutes science, even when science proves religion wrong.

I said religion though, not the bible.
The bible doesn't say half the things people try to make it say, and the things it does say few understand.

The two, science and the bible......all private interpretations aside, will say the same thing eventually.

If let go long enough, science will break into the very labratories of God.
But the power of such knowledge without the character to contain it.......

Does anyone see a dilemma here?

How many times have we started over?
We are on the threshold of a new world, and a thousand years of peace.
But even after that........the war starts again.

Someday, when the lessons are all learned there will be peace.

 

[Pete]

Not all atheists are zealots. Neither are all theists.

Unfortunately, zealots (both atheist and theist) are more visible, because they are the most argumentative.

Extremist opinions are over-represented in discussions, and more likely to degenerate into flaming. This doesn't mean that intelligent debate is impossible... but it does mean that it's much less visible.

 

[lightgigantic]

So far I have only seen success in these methods of handling a meme:

* Destroy all the effected people. Pros: Immediate results. Cons: Big price.
* Educate all the effected people. Pros: Sustainable results. Cons: Very slow.
* Only and consistently respond to the part of the message that is not the meme. Pros: It becomes a meme in itself. Cons: The positive meme gets associated with a leader and one failure to walk the walk can lead to reversion.

There must be an easier alternative - after all I have had discussions that were intelligent (ie didn't innvolve copious ad homming as a regular pastime) with atheists and they didn't innvolve either of annhilating each other, either grossly or subtley.