Jayhawker Soule

That is a truly screwed up sentence.
I don't.

seanie

I said before that I find debating the existence of God almost pointless. I'll explain why I think I think that (forgive my slopiness because this is off the top of my head).

It's basically pointless because you're dealing with belief in a strong sense. When I believe something I recognise my own uncertainty/fallability. Others take their belief as evidence that they are 100% correct.

Now this isn't just a problem with religious belief. You can start into most debates knowing there's no empirical proof or absolute conclusive logic that can win the argument, and that's true for politics, history, art criticism whatever. People can have firm views in all sorts of areas but any debate only has a point if there is some room for movement.

Now your average person can be swayed by arguments on things they do not have a settled opinion on. Present facts and logical argument and they may be convinced.

But argue with someone who truly believes that they are right (be it in politics, theism, the best ball player of all time or whatever) and the debate is rendered almost pointless.

Point out that their argument is illogical and the response is 'too bad for logic'.

Point out factual errors and the response is 'too bad for the facts'.

Human beings have a tremendous ability to ignore things that conflict with what they believe.

And when you come to the God/No God debate their is no middle ground. Unless of course you embrace agnosticism in which case the pointlessness of the argument is acknowledged to begin with.

As I said I'm not sure but I think that's why I think that debating the existence of God is almost pointless.

WJ

Hi tommy!

Thanks. If you read between the lines, Reasonable basically answered the [your] concern.
Really. Also, seanie got the jist of it.

With respect to your initial question regarding appoligist justification, what kind of evidence do you thing you would be looking for?

Walrus

seanie

Put it this way.

If logic, evidence and facts always held sway then the creation/evolution argument would've been over 100 years ago.

tommyc

How about arguing against the existence of a specific God (say, yahweh), because of obviuos contradictions in the attributes of that deity? The point of this could be to convince people of the validity of your viewopint, and perhaps to even "convert" them to your way of thinking.

Again, as I said before, surely if someone enjoys debating the existence of God, isn't that reason enough?

cheers
Tom

seanie

As I said before.

I'm not criticising. Maybe you can chip away at the foundations, open up the odd hairline fracture. If you can open someone's mind up at least to the possibilitythat they're wrong then I suppose it's worthwhile. And if you enjoy it then good for you.

It's just that to me (in my experience) it's always seemed pretty pointless.

I generally get into political arguments but even there there are plenty of people who I can tell straight away are immune from reason.

There's precious little point arguing with them, unless you actually enjoy it. Personally I've never found hitting my head off a brick wall that rewarding.

tommyc

Fair point. Sorry I didnt' notice you'd mentioned the "enjoyment" aspect already.

Isn't most arguing like hitting your head against a brick wall? I've found people rarely like to admit they're wrong once they've established a viewpoint.

Just a thought though, people have and do convert from theism to atheism, and back again. Now I admit that would mostly be through their own reasoning, rather than debate (or argument), which can be hostile and in which people are less willing to give ground. However, I see no harm in keeping lively dialogue between the two camps. Better that than both sides just sitting and ignoring each other, unwilling to discuss each other's arguments.

[edited for there/their correction]

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: tommyc ]</p>

WJ

Tommy/seanie!

Three points:

1. What does it mean to 'enjoy it' in the face of atheism. Or, in theory, what kind of joy would an atheist get out of discussing the possibility of a God's existence?

2. Seanie, what you said about logic I don't think is correct. If you meant to say that our logic has not been able to answer the deepest questions of human existence, you would be correct.

3. Why should anyone feel compelled to convince someone that God exists? Obviously, there are those who do, but I agree with seanie that it is pointless viz. the atheist's belief. I'm an Xian of course and your questions beggs the obvious, why should I want to 'save' or convince an atheist? (Is that even possible?)

seanie

I do often argue with people knowing I can't convince them. In those instances it's generally because there's a wider audience that I think I can convince.

In those instances it's rarely a debate I welcome or even enjoy. But I get involved because certain things can't go unchallenged. An alternative view must be expressed.

Maybe there lies the difference. If someone believes in God (whatever God) I'm not really interested. It's when those views are forced onto others, in particular children, that I'm bothered.

So yes in some circumstances I would still debate the existence of God. But I wouldn't expect to find it an enjoyable or rewarding experience.

WJ

"But I wouldn't expect to find it an enjoyable or rewarding experience."

Good answer. And, I might add, logically consistent!

Tommy, any other concerns?

Walrus