On the nature of the theist/atheist exchanges

W

wynn

˙
Valued Senior Member
The essence of many, if not most, theist/atheist exchanges is stalemate: one person's word against the other's, one person trying to get the upper hand against the other person trying to get the upper hand.

Each side has their sources and references.
The theists have scriptures and religious authorities, sometimes personal experience.
The atheists have a number of texts, scientific, humanist, and even religious (in the case of Buddhism, for example), their own authorities, sometimes personal experience.

Each side directly or indirectly claims to be right, and that its position is actually self-evident.


What can be hoped to be accomplished in theist/atheist exchanges?
 
I can point out that other than a personal experience, which can convince an individual, there is yet no reliable basis for convincing others of religious truth. The problem is that theists are not rational. Religion specifically teaches them to not be rational with it's emphasis on faith.
 
spidergoat said:
I can point out that other than a personal experience, which can convince an individual, there is yet no reliable basis for convincing others of religious truth. The problem is that theists are not rational. Religion specifically teaches them to not be rational with it's emphasis on faith.
Click to expand...

And they cannot be rational, for if they were, they wouldn't be theists in the first place! Well said.

Signal,

Atheists have science on their side while religion/theism shuns scientific principle. That why they don't make any sense to any thinking person who doesn't fall under delusions.
 
I'm asking - What can be hoped to be accomplished in theist/atheist exchanges?
 
Yoyo,

Exactly!

Signal,

Since science is the only way forward and it nowhere supports theistic claims, it looks more like a checkmate..
 
Signal said:
The essence of many, if not most, theist/atheist exchanges is stalemate: one person's word against the other's, one person trying to get the upper hand against the other person trying to get the upper hand.
Click to expand...

Many disputes on the internet are like that. (Check out political confrontations sometime. The same hostility and prejudices over and over endlessly, with no resolution. Ever.) Nobody's going to humiliate themselves by admitting defeat in an argument. So arguments eventually reach an impasse, go in circles, or devolve into flames and insults. Winning a clear victory is probably an unrealistic expectation.

What can be hoped to be accomplished in theist/atheist exchanges?
Click to expand...

I don't really have very much expectation of winning any theists over to my non-theist point of view. Nor am I particularly interested in converting to their views.

The religion discussions aren't totally without value though. Even if we aren't likely to change our views wholesale, there's a good chance that our views will become more sophisticated as they encounter intelligent counterargument.

That, btw, is why I often reply to your posts. It's not that I'm trying to pick on you. In many cases your posts are very thought provoking and they stimulate me to evolve my own thinking a little bit. I enjoy being stretched that way. So keep your ideas coming.
 
Signal said:
The essence of many, if not most, theist/atheist exchanges is stalemate: one person's word against the other's, one person trying to get the upper hand against the other person trying to get the upper hand.

Each side has their sources and references.
The theists have scriptures and religious authorities, sometimes personal experience.
The atheists have a number of texts, scientific, humanist, and even religious (in the case of Buddhism, for example), their own authorities, sometimes personal experience.

Each side directly or indirectly claims to be right, and that its position is actually self-evident.


What can be hoped to be accomplished in theist/atheist exchanges?
Click to expand...

Not entirely true. Blind belief isn't defendable within a scientific context. I think I have proven that before on this forum.

Believing in something unproven, unsubstatiated, and believing it is fact; is not something a sane peson will admit to, only a delusional one.
 
We can learn and see here how belief becomes grooved and fixed, about cosmology, how humans utilize "neglect" and other tricks such as anger or outright pronouncements as if fact, and more about the human condition.
 
SciWriter said:
We can learn and see here how belief becomes grooved and fixed, about cosmology, how humans utilize "neglect" and other tricks such as anger or outright pronouncements as if fact, and more about the human condition.
Click to expand...

Indeed Sci, the scientific study of religion is the study of human weakness itself.
 
Praty said:
Since science is the only way forward and it nowhere supports theistic claims, it looks more like a checkmate..
Click to expand...

The game is over, as the box of truth has opened wide, and all the God believers trying to sit heavy on the lid can't get it closed again…
 
Last edited:
Signal said:
You sound like a militant Southern Baptist, just in an atheistic version.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

Interesting; the guys who create rabble every time when Christianity is defamed somewhere?
Never been to the States, interesting place it seems.

You like to stay in your comfort zone don't you. Think for a change.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top