Are we destined to just feel the truth rather than actually proving it?

James Lee77 said:Well, if that were true, it would mean Sisyphus totally misread what those "proof-seekers" are actually after. 😉
See, their whole goal isn't really to prove God doesn't exist. It’s more about making believers look irrational so they can feel superior. Most people coming out of those debates walk away thinking, "Ha! Look how stupid they are" (or, let's be real, "Heh, look how smart I am"). So, I guess their behavior is actually pretty calculated—it's all about feeding that ego and feeling intellectually superior.

A conversation only really matters when both sides are actually willing to question what they believe. 🤷

I think you're being way too presumptuous here, and honestly, you've got it wrong.

...but, since you mentioned it once before (in that 'atheism' thread)—it seems pretty obvious that you view believers as a single category of 'idiots' who aren't even worth your time, right?

Dialogue always has value... regardless of your specific definitions, whatever methodology you think falls under that, etc., etc...

Besides, it seems like you don't quite grasp the significance of certain things within the current socio-political climate the world is going through right now... because if you did, an atheist's conversation with a believer wouldn't seem the way you're trying to portray it...

And one more thing, these constant threads about stuff like 'are we always being honest,' 'what counts as an insult,' 'us vs. them,' or 'how to talk to each other' are basically just part of a sort of hygienic social game... let's stop overanalyzing everything with all these unnecessary stage directions...

restlessgull11 said:I think you're being way too presumptuous here, and honestly, you've got it wrong.

...but, since you mentioned it once before (in that 'atheism' thread)—it seems pretty obvious that you view believers as a single category of 'idiots' who aren't even worth your time, right?

Dialogue always has value... regardless of your specific definitions, whatever methodology you think falls under that, etc., etc...

Besides, it seems like you don't quite grasp the significance of certain things within the current socio-political climate the world is going through right now... because if you did, an atheist's conversation with a believer wouldn't seem the way you're trying to portray it...

And one more thing, these constant threads about stuff like 'are we always being honest,' 'what counts as an insult,' 'us vs. them,' or 'how to talk to each other' are basically just part of a sort of hygienic social game... let's stop overanalyzing everything with all these unnecessary stage directions...

🤔 Can I get a link? I don't think I ever said that. You might be misremembering something.

James Lee77 said:🤔 Can I get a link? I don't think I ever said that. You might be misremembering something.

What part don't you believe? Maybe you just didn't quite catch my point. I said that back when you were in that religion forum, you basically made the exact same argument you're making here (and it was aimed at me, actually). You implied that debating believers is a waste of time because they're such an easy target and we just get to gloat... you see, it's obvious from your tone—you find arguing with a believer pathetic because they're such a "weak" opponent. That's the sentiment you're repeating in this post... so, while you might not have used those specific words verbatim, that is the underlying meaning of your objection to atheists debating religious people.

Whether it's smart or not... I guess I'm wondering why you're projecting those assumptions onto atheist/theist discussions. It’s clearly because, like I said before, your whole logic is based on the idea that "well, we know how believers are, so everyone ends up looking smarter." Therefore, in your view, the only motivation for these talks is to try and come out on top.

I'm telling you that you're wrong, and that's all there is to it. That's what I meant, and that's what I said.

Man, this is great. Here I go again, supposedly "forcing my opinion" on everyone. What’s the deal? There are ten people posting in this thread, everyone’s sharing their thoughts, and I’m just doing the same—yet somehow, I’m the one "imposing" things... 🤔

But hey, whatever, let's move past the whole "forcing an opinion" thing and get to the point: if you haven't realized yet that the reasons behind faith aren't rational, then here's some news for you. They just aren't rational. If they were, faith would be like math—just an inevitable conclusion for anyone who thinks about it long enough. But faith isn't like that. Even the guy who wrote the most famous arguments for God, Thomas Aquinas, didn't think those proofs could actually convince someone who wasn't already a believer.

That doesn't mean believers are stupid, even if that's what you're implying. It just means that demanding rational proof is totally missing the mark. And no, that doesn't mean believers are irrational—part of what we're talking about regarding faith is actually quite rational. But the core of it, the absolute essential part that makes someone a believer? That can't be explained through logic. Then again, it can't be disproven by logic either. It simply doesn't fall under the umbrella of rationality.

Anyone can figure this out pretty quickly just by talking to a believer. Honestly, insisting on rational evidence after realizing this isn't a logical debate feels like nothing more than pure provocation to me. And the goal of that provocation? I already told you: "Aha! You (again, and again, and again...) can't give a rational explanation for your faith, therefore you're stupid, therefore I'm smart."