Moving Beyond the Common Dialogue

In my experience, the basic conversation between a theist and an atheist runs something like this:

Theist ~ Atheist

God is real. ~ Prove it.
The bible says... ~ Sherlock Holmes books say...
Well, everyone believes... ~ Everyone believed in geocentrism...
I had a personal experience. ~ Alien abductees have personal experiences.
I don't need proof, I have faith. ~ Then why not believe in every god?
There were eyewitnesses. ~ Prove it.
The bible says... ~ Harry Potter books say...
Harry Potter is a book of fantasy. ~ The bible is a book of fantasy.
Now you're just being ridiculous." ~ Now you're just realizing your double standard.

At this "point" (loose term) in the conversation it tends to vary a little bit based on the specific interests of the people debating, but in any common conversation it's fair to say that those above arguments will be made.

Is there a way for either party to move more quickly into a line of dialogue that isn't predictable and already refuted?

 

this depends on what you think the goal of the debate is...where should it lead?

in many cases, when an agreement cannot be reached, debate serves only to further entrench each party in the view they already had.

in short, no there is no way for a significant debate over the actual existance of god because the two figures speak at cross purposes. the atheist's argument will always be based on empirical evidence and logic,the theists argument is based more on feelings,emotions,faith etc. a deeply held belief that bypasses the cerebral,logical part of the brain and goes straight to the affective core. an immutable truth that, by its very nature, appears to the believer as self-evident.

the first step towards a meaningful dialogue must be a recognition of the futility of trying to convince each other of the existence or non-existence of God, because this debate is endless and circular,for the reasons outlined above.

moving past this, more significant headway can be made. for example, as an atheist i believe that our morality comes from empathy and is partially socially constructed. as a theist, one might believe that morality is inbuilt within us because of god. recognition of our differences on this matter is important, but in order to tackle questions of morality and personal, individual responsibility etc. we need only understand that we both believe there to be some kind of basis for morality inherent in humanity. it is far more important to recognise our similarities than our irreconcilable differences.

debates over the existence of god are pointless. no one ever won one. atheists and theists may as well be speaking different languages. we should move beyond them, try to recognise our shared values, and work together, where possible.

so long as church and state are kept separate and no religious views or values without evidence are ever used to impinge on the freedoms or happiness of others, of course.

 

:2thumbsup: ^^^
I was going to say something like this but you said it so well that I don't need to try.

 

I think one big step in moving beyond the common dialogue would be to realize that "theist" isn't a synonym for "Christian fundamentalist".

 

Sure.
Hi. ~Are you going to repaint your toilet from white to green?

Next one, please.

 

I completely disagree: it may be true to say that the fundamental atheist argument is based on empirical evidence (or the lack thereof) and logic, but if you spend any time checking out any actual arguments or debates online between atheists and theists I think you'll find that the average atheist is just as prone to dissembling, propagandizing, and emotional attachment to their positions a typical theist.

IMO, people tend to have a religious attachment to their opinions regardless of whether they're personally religious or not.

No offense to the OP, but I have to say that the username "Evangelical Atheist" is kind of ironic in the sense that there actually are quite a few atheist evangelists online these days, and their methods are identical to their religious counterparts.

I think this is probably true in most cases, but I also think it would be unfair to discount or categorize people's claims to a personal experience. For one thing, many of these experiences are impossible to describe so it would follow that there's no way to present them for discussion.

On the one hand, it would be unfair for anyone who has had any sort of spiritual or religious experience to expect anyone else to understand or accept theirs as proof of anything. On the other hand, it would be equally unfair for anyone to dismiss them based solely on assumptions about what they entail.

I agree the argument is pointless, although for somewhat different reasons.

Agree.

Also agree.

The real problem, I think, is that in many cases these days theists and atheists are playing exactly the same game, they're just wearing different jerseys.

In many if not most cases, both are trying to use their position as self-perceived "the higher ground" from which to look down upon another segment of society.

Many religious people use their religion and the self-proclaimed precepts thereof to establish a feeling of superiority for themselves, and in the process they completely violate most of the core precepts of that religion: humility, compassion, understanding, love,...

But the modern internet atheist evangelist, in many if not most cases, does the same thing: they proclaim "Reason" "Logic" "Education" "Truth" as their sacred trust and then go on to defend those in the most unreasonable, illogical, ignorant, and many times out-right dishonest ways.

We're all hypocrites.

This, is what it comes down to IMO.

The arguments themselves don't mean squat. The important thing is keeping ignorance and prejudice from either side from dictating how the other side should live.

 

Are you ever going to get indoor plumbing?

So are you saying that any Muslim, Jew, Pagan, Buddhist, Hindu,...any theist, even those who don't identify with any religion, is just a different color of Christian fundamentalist?

If so, thank you for providing a good example of what I said in my previous post.

 

Hear hear!

 

To have a common dialogue you need a common vernacular. Common dialogue is no more than agreeing to terms.

Even the term god and theist or atheist can be parsed separately and all can agree to the existence of all.

 

well i'm in total agreement with this, tbh, the argument that i was picturing in my head was an ordered one between a reasonable atheist and a reasonable theist. When i used the word "atheist" what i really meant was a figure who embodies the supposed values of atheism. perhaps my use of people at all was misleading, as i meant to highlight the incompatibility of the two beliefs. I recognise that the vast majority of debates that i've seen tend to devolve into dogmatism,zealotry etc. i would suggest that this is a result of the frustration that arises from the fundamental impossibility of the task of debate between atheist and theist. as i said,people get more entrenched in their views and,therefore,more impassioned and vitriolic.

not to mention the fact that a great many atheists of my personal acquaintance and experience of watching debates seem to do so primarily for the satisfaction of having their own views re-affirmed by the percieved "stupidity"of the theists,rather than for any desire for dialogue or learning.

there is a great hypocrisy among many atheists and its something that is becoming more prevalent. i see this as a result of the constant re-wording of circular,pointless debates. atheism is, in my view,becoming far too politicised as a result, allowed itself to be defined by what it is not,in opposition to religion,rather than what it is. the mere fact that we can use the word "atheist" and instantly picture in our mind a figure and imagine that we know what his views are on anything besides the non-existence of god is, in my opinion,symptomatic of this. Atheism is fast becoming a group with a rigid formal doctrine, much like most religions. Whereas i believe that atheism's real strength lies in its disparate nature, the fact that it is not a group or collective. but merely a term for one single belief. atheists should not, by necessity, share any other belief than that of a lack of a god.

I believe that the debate is fundamentally the problem. it serves no purpose and defines atheists as a group where they shouldn't be seen as,or see themselves,as such. moreover it enlarges the gap between atheists and theists, thus making debate on meaningful topics, on which genuine headway can be made, much more difficult.

yeah,this is true. its the intangible, indescribable quality of faith which makes the debate so difficult.

agreed, i blame the game. its making everything much more difficult.

Agreed. as i said, the idea of a debate between two people where the atheist's argument is basedon logic and rationality is the ideal,although sadly rarely the case, i should have made that qualification in my first post.

i absolutely agree.

yehboi

 

Good points.

Yes, I recognize the major issue in those types of debates is a lack of agreed value; evidence vs faith. I would go so far as to say it's even simpler, a matter of caring whether what one holds as true can be validated.

I guess I was asking if someone might have some insight in how to skip through the boring parts at the start of a conversation and move into the more ... "advanced" arguments.

A time saving point of insertion.

 

if you want a more interesting debate about whether or not there is a god, i'd reccomend starting with assessing each argument for the existence of god which doesn't merely come back to "because the bible says so" pose each and assess/deconstruct:

the cosmological argument
the ontological argument
the teleological argument
the anthropic argument
the transcendental argument
the argument from degree
the pragmatic theory of truth
the argument from reason
argument from morality/beauty/love

then the atheistic arguments:

the boeing 747 gambit
the anthropic argument
the argument from free will
the problem of hell
the argument from nonbelief
the omnipotence paradox
the problem of evil
the destiny of the unevangelised
argument from poor design
consequntialist and non-consequentialist arguments applied to the morality of an omnipotent being (power makes you responsible, ultimate power=ultimate responsibility over every situation, whether you choose to act or not)
the atheist-existentialist argument (now we're getting meaty lol)
the no reason argument.

apply THE SAME rigid standards to these as you do to the theistic arguments, try not to allow personal conviction to affect your critical capacity.

starting with any one of these is guaranteed to give you a more interesting discussion than simply sitting around discussing watches on beaches lol

i'd avoid any argument that involves infintite regress ("so the universe had to have a creator? who created him? and him? and him?") because these get you nowhere and presuppose a linear model of time.

also,avoid theological noncognitivism (god can't be proved by scientific tests.) simply because this is obvious to most people. the argument that you suggest is basically:

theological noncognitivism vs. the transcendental argument

this has been done to death. try another tack.

pose hypotheticals to get past the initial stumbling block. Eg: say that god exists, doesn't that make the universe, by definition, deterministic?

as concession, study some epistomology and learn to question your own beliefs and recognise the extent to which you,as an atheist,also take things on faith. (it is important to recognise your similarities as well as your differences.)

at least in the a variety of assessed arguments, the two of you might avoid falling into pointless, circular debate. you'll never win,but you might learn and better your own understanding through being made to question the structure of your beliefs, not merely to defend them. when the argument devolves into circular debate, recognise it, remain calm and reasoned.accept athat you cannot "win" move onto another argument. this is very important.

hope that helped.

 

Belief is a symbol chosen to represent an unknown variable. Belief never argues with the truth but only with other beliefs.

Perhaps moving beyond the common dialogue involves a philosophical investigation of our own position.

 

God is real. ~ Prove it.
The bible says... ~ Sherlock Holmes books say...

Jesus demands I to love you . ~ How shall you love me ?
All we have here are words . ~ Then how shall you love me with words ?
As spirit shall direct me . ~ How shall you know God has done this ?
Can any word I write affect your existence ? ~ You avoid my last question .
Shall you dismiss my last question ? ~ Eventually not .

 

Can you please explain what you mean?

 

Ah. I see your point then. Although IMO those discussions are pretty rare (probably because when you get a reasonable atheist together with a reasonable theist they'll usually talk about something other than religion.)

 

Maybe start with a discussion on what it means to be human. Who/what we are based on experience.

 

The major issue is fanatism and non-acceptance.

It not only leads to heated discussions but also todiscrimination, torture, murder, war, terrorism.

 

yes you could portray the dialogue in terms of mutual acceptance ,
with statements and questions honestly not intended to win a
gladitorial debate .

this quote expresses two ways of knowing . another character
with a third way could be cool - as like a cool fool .

 

are we talking about moving past typical dialogue in only this type of conversation? i actually tend to avoid these conversations because i believe everyone only does what they want, really. so i can't make someone think what i think....