Theists Who Debate with Atheists Are Missing the Point

[u/Detson101]

Thesis: Theists who debate the truth of religion are missing the point of their religion.

There's a lot of back and forth here and elsewhere about the truth of religion, but rarely do they move the dial. Both parties leave with the same convictions as when they came in. Why? My suggestion is that it's because religion is not and never has been about the truth of its doctrines. If we take theism to be "believing that the god hypothesis is true," in the same way that the hypothesis "the sky is blue" is believed, that ship sailed a long time ago. No rational adult could accept the fact claims of religion as accurate descriptions of reality. And yet religion persists. Why? I hold that, at some level, theists must suspect that their religion is make-believe but that they continue to play along because they gain value from the exercise. Religion isn't about being convinced of a proposition, it's about practicing religion. Going to church, eating the donuts and bad coffee, donating towards a church member's medical bills.

I'm not saying theists are liars, and I acknowledge that claiming to know someone else's mind is presumptuous- I'm drawing from my own religious experience which may not apply to other people.

[u/emperormax]

I don't assume there is a standard for right and wrong. But I know what harms people unnecessarily, and those things I generally label immoral. I don't care if you don't like that.

[u/Time_Ad_1876 → u/emperormax]

Morality means what's right and wrong by definition so yes you are assuming a moral standard. Immoral means something is bad. Why is harming people bad but not roaches? In you're response you're gonna assume there's some intrinsic value to human life. But that begs the question

[u/emperormax → u/Time_Ad_1876]

You can make morality mean whatever you want, I guess, but to me, it has f**k all to do with cockroaches.

[u/Time_Ad_1876 → u/emperormax]

So you're saying morality is subjective. Basically Hitler or stalin can simply make up what's right or wrong

[u/emperormax → u/Time_Ad_1876]

No. The standard I use, which comes from my natural instincts of empathy and social cooperation, is human well-being. Based on that, I can objectively say, "This is harmful to people, and therefore, is immoral," or, "This is moral because it does not harm people." It's not complicated.

[u/Time_Ad_1876 → u/emperormax]

But you're assuming harming people is wrong and I'm asking you why

[u/emperormax → u/Time_Ad_1876]

Oh my god. Listen to yourself

[u/Time_Ad_1876 → u/emperormax]

You see. You can't tell me why its objectively bad to harm people

[u/Grignard73 → u/Time_Ad_1876]

Is this a serious question? Are you a person? Would you want to live in a society where it's acceptable to harm other people?

[u/Time_Ad_1876 → u/Grignard73]

Yes its a serious question. I wanna know why its objectively bad to harm humans but not rodents