The debate itself will forever be on fire. — Modern Conviviality

I expect so, but do you expect it to ever convince anybody to change their view, other than the occasional rare exception?

You sound, from the rest of your post, like a deeply religious person. Are you that way because you were convinced by dry philosophical arguments such as this, or because of personal experience and feelings, or that you were brought up to believe what you do?

What details? I'm simply asking whether you are telling us something about yourself - which is how the OP reads - or making a judgement on anybody that feels differently, in particular, people who believe in some deity or other. — andrewk

Both, I suppose. But, lacking detail, accordingly, my judgement will be suitably limited. I'm hesitant to go overboard without knowing more about what we're talking about, but I can definitely imagine some very unreasonable and mistaken positions which differ from my own.

If it's just telling, then thank you. It's always rewarding to know more about others' thoughts and feelings. If on the other hand it's a judgement, and especially a judgement that people who believe in a deity are irrational or in some other way poor thinkers, whom are you judging, for what beliefs, and what are the grounds for your judgement? — andrewk

This is what I mean: more detail. It would make sense to first examine why they believe what they do, wouldn't it? I have my own reasons for believing what I believe and not believing what I don't, and I think that I have good reasons, but it's at least possible that I'm wrong, that I might realise that I'm wrong, and that a different position might be better. (180 Proof, for example, has in the past given me pause for thought). But I've also seen some very poor reasoning from theists and others in my time, and if we were to single those out, for example, then sure, I'll be much less hesitant to judge them as irrational and such.

But "I don't give a damn about whether or not God exists" is not the same thing as "God? What is that?" (with or without the shrug). The first is true indifference. The second is curiosity. If your current example is supposed to replace the first one, then I have no further comment to make about it. (While still commending curiosity on all sides -- of all questions -- as the best intellectual stance, even though I recognize that we cannot be curious about all things, we must select, and selecting non-God stuff is a perfectly fine selection). — Mariner

If you say so. I just resent what I saw was the hinted suggestion that one cannot have any kind of autonomous space apart and extricated from the space of religious argument. As if this counted as some kind of intellectual 'handicap' or 'incuriosity'. As if people don't have a right (loosely taken) to ask religious argument to STFU and leave them alone, including (and sometimes especially) arguments from 'atheists' all too willing to play the God-game.

If you say so. I just resent what I saw was the hinted suggestion that one cannot have any kind of autonomous space apart and extricated from the space of religious argument. As if this counted as some kind of intellectual 'handicap' or 'incuriosity'. As if people don't have a right (loosely taken) to ask religious argument to STFU and leave them alone, including (and sometimes especially) arguments from 'atheists' all too willing to play the God-game. — StreetlightX

Imagine you're looking at a version of yourself who believes in Quetzalcoatl. This could have been you if things were different. Wouldn't you want to set this version of yourself straight? Talk some sense into him?

There is no set meaning for "god" which I'm going by, so it makes zero sense to seek one from me. It's flexible. I believe that what I've said covers all bases, and if you disagree, then present what you consider to be an exception. But please don't just present again what you've already presented, because I have addressed that already. — S

- S, you are talking about dogs, but I don't know what you mean by the word. What is a dog?

- I'm flexible. There is no set meaning for 'dog' that I am going by. It makes zero sense to seek one from me.

If this is how you approach queries about the meanings of words that you use, there is not much to be said. To request from me an explanation of the word that you are using is quite wrongheaded, of course. (So much so that it would be a sure recipe for confusion in any debate about anything if it were universalized).

But I won't insist.

I just resent what I saw was the hinted suggestion that one cannot have any kind of autonomous space apart and extricated from the space of religious argument. — StreetlightX

If there was any such suggestion it was unintentional. (And I was trying to insert caveats all along the way to prevent or minimize that interpretation -- but I can easily have failed to do it thoroughly ;)).

If their belief isn't hurting anyone - ideally I'm not trying to ritually sacrifice myself - then I wouldn't really have any reason to. And if I am trying to sacrifice me to the Gods I think I have bigger issues than theology.

- S, you are talking about dogs, but I don't know what you mean by the word. What is a dog?

- I'm flexible. There is no set meaning for 'dog' that I am going by. It makes zero sense to seek one from me.

If this is how you approach queries about the meanings of words that you use, there is not much to be said. To request from me an explanation of the word that you are using is quite wrongheaded, of course. (So much so that it would be a sure recipe for confusion in any debate about anything if it were universalized).

But I won't insist. — Mariner

Okay, you're not getting it. There's only so much I can do to help you with that.

Switching to dogs shouldn't make any real difference, but let's give that a go. For the analogy to be apt, it's not extraordinary for the word 'dog' to be used in a variety of ways. Some people use the word to refer to an angry flying green canine from outer space, other people use the word to refer to an invisible canine which can't be detected by humans, and yet others use the word to refer to a vague sense of justice. I can address these ways by saying that the first two kind of ways result in disbelief, and the last way misses the point, since it doesn't say anything that goes against a-dogism, and this is about a-dogism.

For some weird reason, you seem to have gotten it into your head that I must set a single meaning for the word "dog" and tell you what it is with regards to what I've said. That is not required, and if you think otherwise, then you're not on the same level of understanding as me, and you're going to have to work on reaching that level, preferably without me having to assist you every step of the way, because you have difficulty getting over even the smallest of hurdles. Sorry, but I just don't think that I have the patience for that.

If their belief isn't hurting anyone - ideally I'm not trying to ritually sacrifice myself - then I wouldn't really have any reason to. And if I am trying to sacrifice me to the Gods I think I have bigger issues than theology. — StreetlightX

Really? You'd be content to just allow this version of yourself to live out his life holding onto such whacky beliefs? What if he really wanted to ascertain the truth? You wouldn't want to help him get there?

If it was me, I would want to help this other version of me to see things as they really are.

Really really. Religion is too weird, idiosyncratic, and personal/social. Best to let lying dogs lie.

It would make sense to first examine why they believe what they do, wouldn't it? — S

Only if one is curious about that, which seems to bring things back to Mariner's point about curiosity.

Is that the purpose of the thread - that you are curious about other people's religious beliefs and why they hold them, and you want to learn more about that?

but do you expect it to ever convince anybody to change their view, other than the occasional rare exception? — andrewk

Hi Andrewk. Several people here hold the view that philosophical arguments about the existence of God are pointless because they don't convince very many people. I am not sure if you hold that view but I took this comment to indicate it.

Anyway, I think that view is quite superficial. First, I honestly doubt that good arguments very often convince anyone of anything important. If an issue is important, most people feel too strongly about it to be persuaded by logic - of course there are valuable exceptions, as you said. So in this respect arguments about God are, as I see it, no different to arguments about morals or politics or the soul, or even such things as whether animals have thoughts and feelings like humans.

Second, I think philosophical argument is valuable even if it cannot convince. It can be useful when coming to really understand a view and contrast if with alternatives. To really appreciate a view, it helps to see what reasons someone might have for believing it, even if you don't end up converting.

I should also point out that reasoned argument is one of our few ways of convincing others that doesn't involve guns and death.

PA

Yes I do have the view that it rarely ever convinces anybody. I also agree that that is generally the case when people come to a discussion with entrenched positions, on any topic, not just religion. So my distaste for arguments for or against God is matched by my distaste for arguments for or against a mind-independent reality, whether we have free will, and whether there exists an objective morality. There is nothing in principle wrong with discussions about such topics but, at least in places like this, the discussions are usually just repetitive shouting matches between people with entrenched opposite positions.

I do think that good argument can convince people of important things, but the people that are convinced are those that are open to being convinced, open to learning (in short, open-minded), not those that come to the discussion in order to teach others the right way to think about things (which is of course their own way).

I'm not saying I'm immune to the temptation to do that by the way. I have at times entered arguments with an entrenched position, and pushed it for longer than made any sense. I always feel rather foolish afterwards for having done so. I like to think that I rarely do this any more, but maybe that's just wishful thinking.

I agree that philosophical discussion or argument can be very useful if it brings one to an understanding of the positions of others and why they hold them. I have learned a great deal on this forum and its predecessor by reading the arguments of others, and sometimes engaging with them. But some topics seem less conducive than others to an open-minded approach, and debates about religious beliefs seem the least conducive of all. I honestly can't remember ever seeing anybody on either side say 'Oh, I see what you mean' or 'Good point, I shall have to think about that' in such a discussion.

Maybe the benefit of such debates, if they have one, is for the spectators rather than the participants. For a year or so, I listened to a lot of podcast debates about religion and God, and learned a lot about the positions of both sides, and heard some arguments I hadn't heard before, in doing so. Then it started getting repetitive and there was no more to learn, so I stopped, and I don't think I've listened to one since.

Only if one is curious about that, which seems to bring things back to Mariner's point about curiosity.

Is that the purpose of the thread - that you are curious about other people's religious beliefs and why they hold them, and you want to learn more about that? — andrewk

Yes, of course curiosity. That's behind almost everything I do here. Also looking to challenge and be challenged. The purpose is feedback, discussion, questions, explanation, exchange of views, debate.

If you actually wanted to see if/how your position might be ripped to shreds you'd already be engaged in trying to do that yourself. — Jake

I may or may not have a soccer ball in my closet...

I will offer you no evidence either way, and so for now you cannot falsify the claims that there is or is not a soccer ball in my closet...

(With me so far?)

So tell me. Do you believe that there is a soccer ball in my closet or do you believe that there is no soccer ball in my closet? Now that I've asked you the question, surely you must have a belief either way.

Given that you have no way of knowing, do you think it is equally likely that there is a soccer ball as it is likely that there isn't?

What you most likely have is a lack of belief either way; not even fence-sitting. You simply choose to place no faith in either direction, or any position in-between, including the middle one. The only rational position is no position.

Your unfalsifiable God is exactly like the unfalsifiable soccer-ball in my closet. Atheists are to belief in god as you are to the possible soccer ball in my closet.

Sorry, but I just don't think that I have the patience for that. — S

Ok.

Funny post, by the way.

Several people here hold the view that philosophical arguments about the existence of God are pointless because they don't convince very many people. — PossibleAaran

Such arguments could be useful if they reveal to us that nobody can prove anything on either side. If we used such debates to discover that we are ignorant, and then we continued from there to look for ways to put this abundant resource to good use, that would be constructive. But of course, this rarely happens.

Ah, I see. You're unable to rip it to shreds, so you want me to do it for you. :lol:

Your four instructions, or whatever you want to call them, haven't done a thing. We're no further towards any kind of meaningful or productive discussion. — S

1) You've quoted the wrong instructions, illustrating that you were paying no attention when they were provided, even though you responded to the posts where they were provided.

2) We have accomplished something meaningful and productive. We've discovered that you aren't actually interested in challenging atheism in the very same way you reasonably challenge theism. More specifically, you aren't actually interested in my assistance in such a process, or you would have done the tiny little job I gave you so that we could discover whether you are actually interested in such an analysis.

What you want to do is what you're currently doing. You want to have an entertaining ego contest flapdoodle. Ok, this is a Internuts forum, so go for it. If you'd like me to call you name I suppose I could do that much so as to advance your REAL agenda.

Such arguments could be useful if they reveal to us that nobody can prove anything on either side. If we used such debates to discover that we are ignorant, and then we continued from there to look for ways to put this abundant resource to good use, that would be constructive. But of course, this rarely happens. — Jake

Don't need proof, good reason will do. And there are cases where I can give good reason against various positions, including theism, agnosticism, and both strong and weak atheism. A one-size-fits-all approach is not the best approach, as it won't suit all conceivable cases, although weak atheism tends to work okay as a sort of default stance, pending further details.

1) You've quoted the wrong instructions, illustrating that you were paying no attention when they were provided, even though you responded to the posts where they were provided. — Jake

You weren't clear enough and were uncooperative. So you're to blame for this situation, at least in part.

2) We have accomplished something meaningful and productive. We've discovered that you aren't actually interested in challenging atheism in the very same way you reasonably challenge theism. More specifically, you aren't actually interested in my assistance in such a process, or you have done the tiny little job I gave you so that we could discover whether you are actually interested in such an analysis. — Jake

No, we've accomplished no such thing. Just because your demands haven't been met, it doesn't follow that I'm not interested in challenging atheism. I'm interested in challenging atheism, and that's clear from this discussion. But you, however, are coming across as uncooperative and evasive.

What you want to do is what you're currently doing. You want to have an entertaining ego contest flapdoodle. Ok, this is a Internuts forum, so go for it. If you'd like me to call you name I suppose I could do that much so as to advance your REAL agenda. — Jake

You can of course believe what you want. My REAL agenda is actually to take over the world, but nice try.

OK granted with such mute randomness, we finally get an agnostic viewpoint we can all agree on as being agnostic.

However, in the God/No-God debate:
- There is obviously a debate (= the God/No-God debate), which implies there's been evidence thrown around - not a mere coin toss or a ball in a cupboard
- This debate especially, is about God/No-God, the fundamental axiom of the universe (for Atheists, it can be phrased as order vs. chaos, or the formula for a fundamental particle that has driven things since t=00, the formula representing Order, even if quantum mechanics gets involved, there's still a kernel of Order with this fundamental equation).

As it's something so fundamental to our universe, and we are so far downstream of that, it will absolutely not be mute chance, there will have been evidence one way or the other, in abundance.

I say: for there to be >0 pieces of evidence, it is impossible for a human (we have an overarching aesthetic, we are higher beings after all) to be sat on the fence, not even caving into feelings one way or another.

Football in/not in cupboard scenario = 0 evidence available = agnosticism possible.

You've quoted the wrong instructions — Jake

Would you mind posting the correct instructions? If you’ve previously posted them then you could just cut & paste.

One of the problems with theist/atheist interactions is that they usually don't take the time to sort out the proper use of symbolism in discourse, and plunge into the debate without realizing that they are speaking different languages. — Mariner

Earlier in the topic you seemed to suggest that there was some universality to the concept of God. I could be mistaken about that. In any case, I’m curious about your concept and if you would express something about it.

In regard to universality, I was thinking that ‘ultimate authority’ may be core. I think it’s the power of authority, combined with a devaluation of reason, that may turn an atheist’s curiosity, or indifference, into concern.

The God of the philosophers is the only interesting God. — StreetlightX

Speaking honestly, it was for me too, for a few years when I discovered philosophical theology and the joys of exploring the metaphysics of God, his substance, being, and essential nature. But this never ending intellectual endeavor changed and warmed my heart very little.

"The knowledge of God is very far from the love of Him." (Pascal)

At the risk of comparison, after years of 'interesting' ratiocination I had an exactly Augustinian moment: “Nor did I now desire to be more certain of You, but more steadfast in You.” (St. Augustine)

I had explored descriptions of God and his general being well enough. I knew of him, but I did not know him. One cannot remain coldly logical about such matters forever. As in a romantic relationship, there's time for detached reflection on the object of your desire (philosophy) and then there's the relationship itself (mystical union).

Blessedly, no. And even if I did I wouldn't try and ween them off their belief, which would just be a recipe for disaster. — StreetlightX

If you were surrounded by Christian friends and family as I am, you would know that much of the time the conversation is started by them--most likely out of concern for my eternal well-being. It helps to know what you're talking about in those cases.

I think you're mistaken about those conversations being a recipe for disaster. I've had many debates with serious religious people in my life and none of them have ended badly. Those conversations don't often lead to people changing their mind, but if those conversations aren't had then even less people will change their minds than do already. I am personally grateful to all of the people in my life who planted little seeds of doubt in me when I was a believer. It can happen.

No, we've accomplished no such thing. Just because your demands haven't been met, it doesn't follow that I'm not interested in challenging atheism. — S

So start challenging atheism then. Who's stopping you?

Would you mind posting the correct instructions? — praxis

The instructions had a specific purpose which would be defeated by spoon feeding them in to this thread. Here's the theory....

Imagine the theist who says he wants to see if theism can be demolished. The first question we should investigate is, does the theist really want to do this? One way to find out would be to place some tiny little obstacle in the theist's path. Do they climb over the obstacle, or does the obstacle end their investigation?

Why should we do this test?

Well, for one thing, theism may be important to the theist. It may form an important part of his identity. Maybe they couldn't handle not having The Answer to reassure them that they have some idea what life and reality is all about. Maybe they can't handle simply not knowing. Maybe we shouldn't rush right in to taking theism away from them just because they casually wondered if that is possible. Before we proceed to demolish theism, maybe we should see how serious they are.

More to the point, if the theist doesn't sincerely wish to investigate the vulnerabilities of theism, such an investigation is quite likely to be a waste of time. You know how this works. We make a case against theism, and they push back, using the conversation as a mechanism for reinforcing the theist beliefs they already have. If we make an effective case against theism, the unserious theist is likely to get hysterical and the thread devolves in to a food fight. And if you and I have already had such a pointless conversation 10,000 times, that predictable process gets pretty boring pretty quick, right?

The best test to see if the theist really wants to explore the vulnerability of theism is to simply observe whether they are already engaged in such an inquiry on their own. Are they already on the job? Or are they sitting back waiting for someone else to do the work so that they can repeat their memorized slogans.

S has shown us what he really wants to do, and that is what he's doing in this thread. He wants to sell atheism, sell his imaginary cleverness, and get in to ego food fights. And there's not a thing wrong with any of that. Everyone should proceed with that agenda and enjoy the process.

I'm just not interested, that's all. I'm might be interested in joining a serious investigation that challenges atheism with the same enthusiasm and determination that S reasonably challenges theism. For the moment I see no evidence that such a conversation is going to emerge here, so this is my last comment on the matter.

Michael says:
.
”Can you understand that science and logic don't apply to the matter of faith?”

.
Epistemology certainly seems to apply, at least if the faithful one is making propositional claims about what does and doesn't exist and what is and isn't true.

.
Sure, if you have faith that the Earth is flat, then science can show that you’re wrong.
.
I was referring to religious faith in general.
.
If your religion says that the Earth is flat, then your religion is wrong about that. But neither science nor logic has anything to say about the justification for religious faith in general…unless that faith is about a specifically logical or physical matter.
.

A problem that I see with divorcing faith from logic and evidenciary [He means “evidentiary”] justification…

.
Faith needn’t be (and religious faith usually isn’t) about anything that logic or physical evidence applies to at all.
.
That’s hardly surprising, because logic and science are mis-applied, and become pseudo-logic and pseudo-science when a pseudoscientist attempts to apply them outside their self-circumscribed, self-defined limits of applicability.
.
Evidence doesn’t mean proof.
.
Faith (“trust” is the definition of “faith” that I prefer) is belief without, or aside from, evidence.
.
Merriam-Webster defines “evidence” as “outward sign”. …a good concise (and maybe better) way of expressing my own definition as “a reason (not necessarily proof) to believe something, based on its effect or result on something else…as opposed to principle or feeling about the belief’s subject itself”.
.
I’ve stated some reasons to believe, reasons that qualify as “evidence”, as opposed to faith, by the definitions in the paragraph before this one,
.
But there are also discussions (some of them from the Scholastics) to justify faith. …in other words, reasons to believe, without or aside from evidence. There are modern (usually more complicated) versions of those Scholastic arguments. And there are one or more simpler, more modest discussions (…a term that I prefer to “arguments”), more convincing due to that simplicity and modest-ness.
.
Speaking for myself, the reasons qualifying as evidence were the ones that convinced me, but I don’t discount some of the discussions that justify faith—especially the simpler and more modest.
.

A problem that I see with divorcing faith from logic and evidenciary [He means “evidentiary”] justification…entirely is that it leaves the content of faith seemingly indistinguishable from the content of psychotic delusions.

.
Difficult for you to distinguish. I guess we should sympathize with your difficulty in evaluating other people’s beliefs. But, for yourself, you needn’t believe anything that you don’t know of reason to believe. Just remember that, and you won’t have a genuine problem about it.
.
Merriam-Webster gives two definitions of “delusion”. One of those definitions is a generalized definition that just says “incorrect belief”.
To judge whether a belief is “delusion” in that broad, extended, generalized definition, just ask yourself this question: “Is it a belief that I know to be false?”
How complicated is that?
But that generalized definition is an extension, a broadening, from a clinical definition, also mentioned in Merriam-Webster:
.

In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a delusion is defined as: A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.

.
As you see, that clinical definition, the one that is more legitimately implied by the word “delusion”, is a more demanding definition.
.
It isn’t enough that the belief by incorrect. It must also be “firmly sustained despite what almost everybody else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.
.
(…but one could wonder what it would mean for evidence to be incontrovertible without being proof.)
.
To judge whether a belief qualifies as delusion by that definition, then, you’d just need to ask yourself if the belief is false (incorrect), but, additionally, you’d need to ask yourself if there’s incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary.
.
I’m glad that I could help you out by posting these two definitions.
.
As for which definition of “delusion” to use, when making that determination, I’d suggest that the clinical definition would be better for you to use, because of your wording of your dilemma.
.
Glad I could help. You’re welcome.
.
(Oh, and if you decide to use the word “delusion”, don’t forget to share the obvious and incontrovertible proof or evidence to the contrary, or at least your proof of falsity, even if it isn’t obvious and incontrovertible.)
.

.
I'm inclined to define 'faith' as something like 'willingness to commit one's self to the truth of a belief when that belief is imperfectly justified.'

.
No, that amounts to a built-in value-judgment about the justifiableness of faith.
.
Better to just say “Trust. Or belief without, or aside from, evidence.”
.
Michael Ossipoff