Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → Life, The Universe & Everything → Philosophy → Why atheists fail to persuade theists

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Lights on the way
by akay
Yesterday at 02:51 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
Yesterday at 06:45 AM
What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 08:08 PM
Gaza assault
November 21, 2024, 07:56 PM
Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
November 21, 2024, 05:07 PM
New Britain
November 20, 2024, 05:41 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
November 20, 2024, 09:02 AM
Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM
Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM
Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 08:46 PM
AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
November 07, 2024, 09:56 AM
The origins of Judaism
by zeca
November 02, 2024, 12:56 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Why atheists fail to persuade theists

 (Read 36382 times)
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #60 - December 22, 2013, 10:22 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 22, 2013, 10:20 PM
    If you want a more thorough answer than "depends", I'll need more context.

    If you don't critically question the rival explanations, then how will you decide? By figuring out which doctor is most reputable?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #61 - December 22, 2013, 10:32 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 22, 2013, 10:22 PM
    In the realm of science, if a work is not peer reviewed, then its validity is severely suspect. In the case of doctors and second opinions, the facts won't change, but it's your body and you choose what to do with it. Not an accurate comparison in my opinion.

    I'm not clear on what your point is. Could you clarify?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #62 - December 22, 2013, 10:33 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:22 PM
    If you don't critically question the rival explanations, then how will you decide? By figuring out which doctor is most reputable?

    I generally trust my doctors. I have known them for a long time. If my doctor told me I needed a serious medical procedure, depending on the nature of the procedure and if I had any contextual reason to, I'd be straightforward with them and tell them I'd like a second opinion. If the context was such that I ended up getting a second opinion, I'd weigh my options up. If the second opinion contradicted the first to such an extent that the necessity of that procedure was in doubt, I'd probably get a third opinion and I'd be angry at having to do so. I'd probably be frightened, but resolved to make absolutely sure it was necessary, since doubt has arisen. I'd consult people who are important to me and I know have my best interests in mind. I'd involve them in the process. In this unlikely scenario, of so many factors, I cannot give you a conclusive answer as to what the outcome would be and how, specifically and sequentially, I'd reach it.

    Does this answer your line of questioning?
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #63 - December 22, 2013, 10:35 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 22, 2013, 10:22 PM
    In the realm of science, if a work is not peer reviewed, then its validity is severely suspect. In the case of doctors and second opinions, the facts won't change, but it's your body and you choose what to do with it. Not an accurate comparison in my opinion.


    In the end, we can always choose what to believe and what not to believe. None of that changes facts that have been proven over and over again. Your doctor scenario makes no sense in the context of this discussion.
    "Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve, and hope without an object cannot live." -Coleridge

    http://sinofgreed.wordpress.com/
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #64 - December 22, 2013, 10:36 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:22 PM
    If you don't critically question the rival explanations, then how will you decide? By figuring out which doctor is most reputable?


    Fascinating discussion

    RamiRustom's    Doctor/patient example and patient choosing a doctor to cure his/her disease   is a terrible example for an  atheist or theist in believing the existence of god or no existence of god.  Patient is NOT an expert and  is in no position to choose Doctor unlike the  debates on the religious concepts on  god thingy we have.. 

    So I wonder how RamiRustom defines god in the first place?

    simple question is,  what is god??
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #65 - December 22, 2013, 10:39 PM
    yeezevee said:

    //RamiRustom's    Doctor/patient example and patient choosing a doctor to cure his/her disease   is a terrible example for and atheist or theist in believing the existence of god or no existence of god..//

    I don't understand your point. You didn't give an argument for why you think that it's "a terrible example".


    //what is god??//

    I don't believe in god. So it doesn't make sense to ask me to define it.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #66 - December 22, 2013, 10:40 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 22, 2013, 10:35 PM
    In the end, we can always choose what to believe and what not to believe. None of that changes facts that have been proven over and over again. Your doctor scenario makes no sense in the context of this discussion.


    Facts don't get proven. You're thinking that evidence works by supporting theories. But you're wrong. Evidence works by refuting theories.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #67 - December 22, 2013, 10:42 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 22, 2013, 10:33 PM
    I generally trust my doctors. I have known them for a long time. If my doctor told me I needed a serious medical procedure, depending on the nature of the procedure and if I had any contextual reason to, I'd be straightforward with them and tell them I'd like a second opinion. If the context was such that I ended up getting a second opinion, I'd weigh my options up. If the second opinion contradicted the first to such an extent that the necessity of that procedure was in doubt, I'd probably get a third opinion and I'd be angry at having to do so. I'd probably be frightened, but resolved to make absolutely sure it was necessary, since doubt has arisen. I'd consult people who are important to me and I know have my best interests in mind. I'd involve them in the process. In this unlikely scenario, of so many factors, I cannot give you a conclusive answer as to what the outcome would be and how, specifically and sequentially, I'd reach it.

    Does this answer your line of questioning?

    How do you "weigh" your options? Isn't it by critically questioned them? If not, then how do you "weigh" them?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #68 - December 22, 2013, 10:43 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:40 PM
    Facts don't get proven. You're thinking that evidence works by supporting theories. But you're wrong. Evidence works by refuting theories.


    Incorrect. Facts are impartial. They just exist. They can either support or refute a theory.
    "Work without hope draws nectar in a sieve, and hope without an object cannot live." -Coleridge

    http://sinofgreed.wordpress.com/
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #69 - December 22, 2013, 10:47 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 09:28 PM
    If a theory is vague, then a useful criticism is that it's vague, hence it's refuted.


    The origin theories of the Israelite are vague, often in conflict with each other. This vagueness is acknowledged and accept by archaeologists. This does not stop them from developing other theories based on this vagueness. It only bothers those that must have a complete answer.

    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:40 PM
    Facts don't get proven. You're thinking that evidence works by supporting theories. But you're wrong. Evidence works by refuting theories.


    It work both ways. Evidence can support and refute theories. No hypothesis can become a theory without evidence validating the hypothesis.

    Dang Movingfeet beat me to it.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #70 - December 22, 2013, 10:55 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:39 PM
    yeezevee said:

    I don't understand your point. You didn't give an argument for why you think that it's "a terrible example".

     well I am reading your long opening post and typing RamiRustom.,  What I mean to say was Patient is not an expert in the subject of Medicine. He may have a choice to choose doctor but he is not doing that with his knowledge in the subjects., That case is different from this Atheist..  People become atheists  after thoroughly debating with-in themselves with the existing  concepts of god unlike the patient who has no knowledge of Medicine
    Quote
    I don't believe in god. So it doesn't make sense to ask me to define it.

    Then I am lost.. So what is the discussion is about RamiRustom ?
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #71 - December 22, 2013, 11:21 PM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 10:42 PM
    How do you "weigh" your options? Isn't it by critically questioned them? If not, then how do you "weigh" them?

    I throw them in a hat and pick one out at random.

    Yes, of course, I employ my critical faculties when I weigh up options.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #72 - December 22, 2013, 11:56 PM
    Quote from: movingfeet on December 22, 2013, 10:43 PM
    Incorrect. Facts are impartial. They just exist. They can either support or refute a theory.

    So show me how something can support a theory. Give a hypothetical example if you like.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #73 - December 23, 2013, 12:00 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 22, 2013, 11:21 PM
    I throw them in a hat and pick one out at random.

    Yes, of course, I employ my critical faculties when I weigh up options.

    Great. So I'll recap. If you have 2 rival theories, the way in which you figure out which one is true (aka unrefuted) is by criticizing them until you have one theory left unrefuted. And then you enact that theory. In this case, the two rival theories are opposing doctor's opinions on what to do about your health problem.

    (This was my point from the beginning -- you didn't understand how this worked and your own hypothetical example shows how it works.)
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #74 - December 23, 2013, 12:02 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 22, 2013, 11:56 PM
    So show me how something can support a theory. Give a hypothetical example if you like.

    New strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria are supporting evidence of evolution over time by natural selection.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #75 - December 23, 2013, 12:03 AM
    Quote from: bogart on December 22, 2013, 10:47 PM
    It work both ways. Evidence can support and refute theories. No hypothesis can become a theory without evidence validating the hypothesis.

    Show me how evidence can support a theory. Also explain to me what you mean by "support". Do you mean that a piece of evidence works by selecting 1 theory from many possible theories?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #76 - December 23, 2013, 12:03 AM
    Quote from: bogart on December 22, 2013, 10:47 PM
    It work both ways. Evidence can support and refute theories. No hypothesis can become a theory without evidence validating the hypothesis.

    Dang Movingfeet beat me to it.


    Actually I beat you to it. Check the first page. Wink
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #77 - December 23, 2013, 12:05 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:02 AM
    New strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria are supporting evidence of evolution over time by natural selection.

    No. Evidence works by refuting theories. And that evidence doesn't refute the evolution theory.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #78 - December 23, 2013, 12:10 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:00 AM
    Great. So I'll recap. If you have 2 rival theories, the way in which you figure out which one is true (aka unrefuted) is by criticizing them until you have one theory left unrefuted. And then you enact that theory. In this case, the two rival theories are opposing doctor's opinions on what to do about your health problem.

    (This was my point from the beginning -- you didn't understand how this worked and your own hypothetical example shows how it works.)

    No, this is too oversimplified. The manner in which I accept a theory does not fit into your oversimplified template. And I say accept, because I have no business saying a theory is true at all, since its a theory and truth is an irrelevant property of a theory.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #79 - December 23, 2013, 12:10 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:03 AM
    Show me how evidence can support a theory.


    Well, let's take evolution. Evidence that supports the claims. Fossils. DNA. The tree of life found in the human genome. Recessive traits. Atavism.

    For something easier to see, how about the fox domestication experiment? http://toughlittlebirds.com/2013/09/17/the-amazing-fox-domestication-experiment-or-how-your-puppy-got-floppy-ears-and-a-waggly-tail/

    You may also have heard of the Italian wall lizards.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

    http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #80 - December 23, 2013, 12:12 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:05 AM
    No. Evidence works by refuting theories. And that evidence doesn't refute the evolution theory.

    It supports the theory of evolution over time by natural selection.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #81 - December 23, 2013, 12:12 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 22, 2013, 10:55 PM
    Then I am lost.. So what is the discussion is about RamiRustom ?

    Most atheists argue with theists by asking for evidence of their god claim. But of course there is no evidence since their god claim is not a scientific theory, which means that it doesn't make any testable predictions. (here I'm talking about the harder god claim, the one that doesn't make any testable predictions). So it's a bad question.

    And then the theist argues by asking the atheist for evidence of his claim that there is no god. But there is no evidence again.

    So by asking for evidence, the atheist gives the theist a way out -- to ask for evidence.

    Both claims have no evidence, so it's a mistake to ask for evidence.

    But we don't need evidence. All we need to do is find a contradiction, and the theory is refuted.

    And every god claim I've encountered contains a contradiction. And it's pretty easy to find it and explain it to the theist (though if he's not willing to adopt a rational attitude then he won't change his mind).

    What I do with theists is to ask them: What question does your god claim solve? i.e. What problem does your god claim solve? i.e. Why do you believe in god?

    This puts the ball in their court. Don't take the ball back until they form a question. Once you have their question, then criticize it, in order to reveal the contradiction. Once you've found it, the idea is refuted.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #82 - December 23, 2013, 12:17 AM
    Quote
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:03 AM
    Show me how evidence can support a theory.

    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:02 AM
    New strains of antibiotic resistant bacteria are supporting evidence of evolution over time by natural selection.



    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:05 AM
    No. Evidence works by refuting theories..


     Cheesy .. well evidence.. experimental evidence.. CAN SUPPORT OR REFUTE a proposed theory  RamiRustom ..

    But Ishina's post is interesting.,  Question is,  how does this bacteria knows to evade the antibiotics and generate  the daughter antibacterial resistant bacteria? what is the logic and force behind it., Does this bacteria has some sort of brain   where it recognizes   antibiotic and mutate its DNA sequence???
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #83 - December 23, 2013, 12:20 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:12 AM
    It supports the theory of evolution over time by natural selection.

    But there is more than one theory of evolution, so that doesn't make sense.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #84 - December 23, 2013, 12:20 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:12 AM
    Most atheists argue with theists by asking for evidence of their god claim. But of course there is no evidence since their god claim is not a scientific theory, which means that it doesn't make any testable predictions. (here I'm talking about the harder god claim, the one that doesn't make any testable predictions). So it's a bad question...

    rest of the post I need to digest.,  but that is classic claim  from preachers of Abrahamic faiths..  Here is a perfect example for you RamiRustom. watch it .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1rEsiOs4
    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim     
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #85 - December 23, 2013, 12:22 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:17 AM


     Cheesy .. well evidence.. experimental evidence.. CAN SUPPORT OR REFUTE a proposed theory  RamiRustom ..

    But Ishina's post is post interesting.,  Question is how does this bacteria knows to evade the antibiotics and generate  the daughter antibacterial resistant bacteria? what is the logic and force behind it., Does this bacteria has some sort of brain   where it recognizes   antibiotic and mutate its DNA sequence???

    I agree with you that that evidence is consistent with the theory of evolution.

    What I'm saying is that that evidence doesn't SUPPORT a theory. Evidence can only REFUTE theories.

    If you disagree with me, then show me how a piece of evidence can select 1 theory out of many theories.
  • Re: Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #86 - December 23, 2013, 12:23 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:17 AM


     Cheesy .. well evidence.. experimental evidence.. CAN SUPPORT OR REFUTE a proposed theory  RamiRustom ..

    But Ishina's post is post interesting.,  Question is how does this bacteria knows to evade the antibiotics and generate  the daughter antibacterial resistant bacteria? what is the logic and force behind it., Does this bacteria has some sort of brain   where it recognizes   antibiotic and mutate its DNA sequence???

    Generations of bacteria a short-lived and so are subject to a lot of random mutation in a relatively short space of time. If one random mutation happens to make a new bacteria more resistant to attack from antibiotics, it will survive and reproduce, whereas those without the mutation will likely die out. The population will then be dominated by the bacteria with the resistance.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #87 - December 23, 2013, 12:25 AM
    Quote from: yeezevee on December 23, 2013, 12:20 AM
    rest of the post I need to digest.,  but that is classic claim  from preachers of Abrahamic faiths..  Here is a perfect example for you RamiRustom. watch it .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcM1rEsiOs4

    I watched up to 1:40 and I'm bored. What's the point? Did you give me that video as an example that is in agreement with me, or in disagreement?
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #88 - December 23, 2013, 12:27 AM
    Quote from: RamiRustom on December 23, 2013, 12:20 AM
    But there is more than one theory of evolution, so that doesn't make sense.

    Of course it makes sense. Life literally evolving over time in front of your eyes is evidence that life evolves over time. You can dispute the minutiae, fineprint and peripheral issues about evolution overall, but you literally have life evolving in front of you. No matter what issue is in contention within the broad umbrella of biology and evolutionary theory, you have evidence that life evolves over time.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Why atheists fail to persuade theists
     Reply #89 - December 23, 2013, 12:27 AM
    Quote from: Ishina on December 23, 2013, 12:10 AM
    No, this is too oversimplified. The manner in which I accept a theory does not fit into your oversimplified template. And I say accept, because I have no business saying a theory is true at all, since its a theory and truth is an irrelevant property of a theory.

    What are you talking about? You said that you would critically question the rival opinions of your doctors. So your example is in agreement with my essay. If you disagree, then explain.
  • Previous page 1 2 34 5 ... 8 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »