Why do you engage in the atheist / believer debates?

Post Reply New Topic

I see the battle between atheists and believers still rages in here. This isn't a thread in favour of one or the other, I just wonder if people ever look behind the scenes and ask why they engage in the debate?

People usually seem to be entrenched in either position and seldom open to listen to those with opposing views. Perhaps there is no possibility of consensus anyway. I suspect that starting from a position of believing something is not reconcilable with a starting position of refusing to believe anything other than what can be physically demonstrated by scientific means.

It is like trying to argue whether apples can do mental arithmetic better than beer mugs.

Oh, apples CAN do better arithmetic than beer mugs.

I usually engage for an opportunity to undermine arguments though.

I see. But can you effectively undermine arguments which are founded on belief?

For example if I say that I believe Elvis is still alive, I could logically declare that he must still be eating, breathing and sleeping. You could not argue against those statements. If I said he was really a Martian you could logically argue against that as it is an assertion without logic or evidence.

You could always argue against my belief that Elvis was alive, but since it is a belief not a logically or scientifically arrived at conclusion your arguments would be like nets catching the wind. Short of hauling his body out of coffin and doing DNA tests on known tissues samples to verify he was dead I could cling on to my belief for ever.

(I'm not saying I really believe Elvis is alive by the way )

I would need to see some evidence of this.

It's an interesting question because I often find myself trying to convince someone that religion is a con game and I am never successful. It's like the battle against dirt in the floor or litter in the street. I dislike a mess and I often pick up street litter and put it in a waste basket. It's useless, of course because there's always some jerk who will throw more stuff on the street. But it's my world too and I like to keep it neat and clean.

Perhaps he means an Apple Mac

I love being devil's advocate, whether the majority is religious or the majority is atheist I'll pick arguments against them since it is a little tedious to see people thinking they own the truth, and in my opinion neither the religious or the atheists really do own the truth, there is no evidence for either argument.

I have a great fondness for religious history and really enjoy the comparison between different religious beliefs. I'm not the sort of person who feels driven to "convert" anyone to my own faith, and I have no inention of being "converted" to anyone else's. I'll defend someone's right to their freedom of religion to my best ability.

I prefer for people to actually KNOW what their beliefs are before they try to tell me what I'm supposed to believe! I used to give the "door knockers" that would inevitably show up on Wednesday evenings where I used to live something snackish as a sort of apology for what I was about to do to them once they started their "schpiel." My older kids used to sit in the room just to watch the entertainment. Although, the time it was the KKK was really fun...

I think you have hit the nail on the head metaphorically speaking. People like to believe there is order and reason to their lives.

To some people having religious beliefs gives them that order and sense of comfort that there is a bigger picture and somehow everything is part of that bigger picture. It gives them a sense of belonging and perhaps comfort in the face of eventual death.

To other people the cold hard facts of science and logic gives them a sense of order in the universe. They feel there is no magic or anything happening behind the scenes that cannot be explained.

Everyone wants a mind and belief system that they feel is "neat and clean". They just find that mental composure in different ways.

When people argue in the theist/atheist debates many are perhaps really defending their mental composure rather than truly debating in search of deeper truth.

Yes, it is interesting how many people just accept everything they are told without question. As a teenager I had a growing interest in philosophy, science and religion and this was a magnet for the likes of Jehovah's Witnesses. I patiently sat with them in my house and asked lots of questions about their faith and my enquiring mind frightened them. No question was taboo for me. I remember asking about dinosaurs and they told me God put them on the Earth to keep the vegetation down until he created man. Hmmm. They clearly had not thought through a lot of things and penetrating questions just made them uncomfortable. They stopped coming to see me in the end, I think I was undermining their faith!

One of the strangest things ever said to me was by a Muslim. He was against science being taught in schools because it undermined religious beliefs! How can you argue against a remark like that? From a philosophical standpoint he and I were on different planets.

Because an intelligent debate on the subject is both intellectually stimulating and rewarding. Now, trying to find an intelligent debate and not a shouting match where both sides are demonized and stereotyped by the worst of their respective kinds, that's the challenge. If we could all agree that not all Christians are bigoted Jerry Falwell clones and not all atheists are pimply teenage nihilists, we could have some fun discussions.

To lol at rabid atheists who think they are doing humanity a favour by "disproving" religion, when they are not. I'm agnostic, but I respect religion, unlike some ironically blind morons.

Yes I agree. I've had a lifelong interest in the subject but don't often take part in the debates here because people tend to shoot from the hip rather than reflect on what people are saying or trying to get at. It tends to be who can shout the loudest or who can make the most cutting or cynical remark.

Inconsistencies.


Well, the issue is that many theists try to stretch out their faith into a proof that Elvis must live, or that Elvis is doing contradictory things or that Elvis is necessary or something else like that.


Well, all I have to do is argue that your belief is inconsistent, and aparsimonious, and then I can simply dismiss you as holding to a bunch of crap, or even go deeper and use the inconsistencies to reveal more inconsistencies until my victory is somewhat thorough.

I get the idea I think. So everything I attribute to Elvis being alive gets chipped away or shown to be false or caused by other none-Elvis related factors. So all that remains is my stubborn belief that Elvis lives, but with no proof in the scientific sense that he is living. In the end my belief becomes irrelevant because it is impotent - it has no effect on anything, so it is of no consequence - literally. So its truth or falseness becomes a mute point. That is what seems to be happening to the ground traditionally held by religions over time with evolution, physics and cosmology all chipping away at the actions that had previously been assigned to God.

That reminds me of what the Pope (John Paul 2) said to Professor Steven Hawkins. The professor had worked out a cosmological theory for everything after the first second of the big bang. But the pope told him not to look earlier than that point as it was the realm of God - or words to that effect.

However, I feel there is still more to this than pure reductionist logic and scientific reason. I will have a ponder to see if I can express myself in a coherent manner and post again.

You would tear apart and sink my beliefs, wishes and hopes to the bottom of despair and hopelessness