To debate religion or not, that is the question

[Kilgamayan]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

but I never would have noticed the hidden bias in Afro's post without you pointing it out.

Are you serious? I noticed it instantly.

[MalReynolds]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

Are you serious? I noticed it instantly.

I think he's kidding.

As much as I like seeing spirited debate, there are people on here (14-18) that just won't have it because they HAVE to be right and there can be no middle ground. I love reading the openings of locked religious topic threads, because they're good reads, but then after the second page, they degenerate into definition tossing.

But I would really like to see religious topics again. It's good to see something unite people... And then make them huddle around a fire as wolves circle. Great team building exercise.

As it stands, I'm voting FOR religious debates, but ban people from them that can't grasp the fact that debate doesn't mean ANGRY YELLING NO GOD SO THERE IS A GOD NO THERE ISNT YOURE NIAVE

[Squeek]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

Are you serious? I noticed it instantly.

Maybe it was because that's exactly how I think, and nobody ever thinks they have a bias.

[T0rajir0u]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

the religious issues you guys bring up tend to be the ones that aren't debatable because there isn't a common basis for evaluating religious arguments

[meno_rocks123]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

You can have Christmas leaving out santa and that crap. I knew several Christians who took this view on the holiday before I quit being one.

I just dont celebrate the Santa and tree crap anymore, i still celebrate Christmas though.

Are you serious? I noticed it instantly.

I just didn't notice because i just automatically capitalize the word "God".

its okay to have faith and to talk about what you believe in, but too many people start flaming others for writing comments about what they believe. For that specific reason, I said no.

[Grandiagod]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

The thing about religious debates is that no one will ever gain the upper ground. Religion is based on complete faith, which is impossible to disprove because it has no proof to back it up in the first place.

Now certain elements of religion can be debated. But there neve will be a definitive "Religion Yes or No".

PS. Unlock this thread, it was no where near done and was still in the realm of civility. Plus it was actually debatable.

http://www.flashflashrevolution.com/vbz/showthread.php?t=42989

[Kilgamayan]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

Maybe it was because that's exactly how I think, and nobody ever thinks they have a bias.

I know I have a bias toward religion, but that wouldn't stop me from phrasing that particular event like this:

"The non-religious says that science bring up several points as to why religion can't be true. The religious person says that their higher power(s) is/are above the explanations of science."

Both sides will say these things, and neither side's opinion is presented in a degrading fashion, either to itself or to the other.

[Chrissi]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

I just attended a 2 hour debate today with a 30 minute questioning period. The question that these people seeked to answer was: "Does God exist?"

It was sponsored by Campus for Christ, so it was heavily biased in the God-fearing direction. Debaters were a Reverend and the chair of the philosophy dept on campus, Dr. Tim Kenyon.

They were very good, but it just seemed like there wasn't nearly enough time for either of them to fully explain their thoughts. It was rather confusing. They could do an entire course on this and still not fill it up.

And still not answer the question. These are two highly respected and very smart people.

Basically, it came down to: Rev. believed that without God, there is no basis upon which to lay our foundations of humanity. Reason, emotion, and everything else could not be explained without this.

Kenyon believed that God is absolutely unnecessary, which unnerved the Rev to no end, because the debate was supposed to be "between a theist and an atheist". The Reverend believed that Kenyon was not truly an atheist, but an agnostic, which screwed up their whole debate. He wanted Kenyon to try to prove that God doesn't exist. And as you all know, that's impossible. So does Kenyon. He's a very smart guy. He explained that he is as much an atheist about God as most people are atheists about backwards flying purple unicorns. It's just highly unlikely to exist, but you can't prove it doesn't.

Rather disappointing. It's funny that he was all prepared to attack an argument that nobody can actually make. And it's incredibly easy to see why. No matter what scientific rationale you place upon the world, you can always attach God, like a sheath, over top of it. God doesn't have to actually do anything to exist. So you can't prove he does not exist. He can be invisible to everything we know how to analyze.

[Laharl]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

Laharl, on what grounds would the line be drawn? I mean, it's not easy sometimes to discern the bias. Personally, I am biased. It's an odd kind of bias since I've been in your shoes and then stepped out of them having been in a Catholic school for 5 years and a Confirmed Catholic of 16 years before I quit, but I never would have noticed the hidden bias in Afro's post without you pointing it out.

Then again, there is an subtle bias every time you capitalize 'god', since you assume your god is the supreme god to rule all other gods of all other religions in doing so.

To the first point, I actually thought about that. I don't really know. I guess that's one reason that saying no religious topics is a catch-all. Just don't bring it up, in general, regardless of how well thought-out the original post. As Mal said, most threads regarding religion are approached from a relatively unbiased, or at least open, starting point. It just degrades incredibly fast.

As for capitalizing God, it's because it's God. Just like I'd capitalize Yaweh or Allah or Buddah. If you're talking about the Christian god, then it's God, because then people know what you're referring to already.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

About me and Christmas, December 25 is the Birthday of the 'sun god' Baal, (from old myth), not Jesus. And the Bible does not give a Commandment on celebrating His birth but to be thankful for His sacifice so you can be saved.

And being Catholic is not being a Christian, they're not the same thing AT ALL.

[Afrobean]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

Sorry for this post. It's kinda long and quotes a lot of people haha. I wouldn't bother with it, but I just felt I had to say everything I did.

You're actually proving the mindset I'm talking about.

Without attacking it, you're attacking religion. Go look at what I put in bold in the quote. What you said, basically, suggest a superiority of atheists over those that believe in God.

When it comes to arguing the existence of any god, yes. All a religious person has on their side is feelings. You can't debate about feelings unless you have facts to back them up.

And don't even get me started on the Bible. If I accepted everything from the Bible as fact, I wouldn't even be atheist. The fact is that the Bible is a very old book which has many things in it which are at odds with logic, and because of that, I cannot accept things from the Bible as fact.

The "arguments" that occur here are so one-sided that there isn't much of a point at all.

I agree. Despite being fun to partake in from time to time ( ), they really get us no where. Anyway, you can't talk an atheist into believing in any god and you can't get a religious person to change their perceptions as well.

I can't think of the last time someone even made a passing comment INVOKING the name of Jesus or God without someone else bashing that person.

Seriously, do you guys even learn the Ten Commandments? To "invoke" his name is blasphemous. I'd think that if someone was being blasphemous, YOU (or any Christian, or Jew, since he was their god first rofl) should be the one bashing them.

It's like the gang mentality kicks in. You're either right because you're in the majority, or you're wrong because the majority obviously posesses better logic. A guy can't even say, for example, "I pray to God the people of New Orleans will be able to reforge their lives," without someone like Rai popping in and going "thar is no god lol religion."

Perhaps in the Garbage Bin or Chit Chat, but you're pretty much safe from people who's only contributions are like that here. I may share their position on the topic (lol religion), but at least I try to be eloquent about it.

At the very least, perhaps we should start a TGB type banning system for CT. Flames get you banned. A critical analysis of why you disagree (not think the other person is wrong, but disagree; there is quite a difference) with someone else's point of view is all good.

I disagree. In my mind, if I disagree with them, then they are wrong in my opinion. How can I disagree with them if I don't think they're wrong?

That's my veiw, too. I mean I am so Christian that I dont even do Christmas anymore ( the reason why I dont is that it's no longer about God, so why do it? I could explain but if you wanna know then you'll ask me). But even though it hurts, I'm voting for a ban.

GG. Jesus wasn't even born in December. Know why Christmas is celebrated then? Because the church put it there to sort of cover up the pagan celebration of Saturnalia.

I never would have noticed the hidden bias in Afro's post without you pointing it out.

That's probably because as far as I've seen, it's true. I have yet to see any debate between an atheist and a Christian that didn't end up like that (ie "there is no proof that there is a god" and "oh well, I have faith").

Then again, there is an subtle bias every time you capitalize 'god', since you assume your god is the supreme god to rule all other gods of all other religions in doing so.

Think of it like a character in a fictional narrative book. Let's just say in that book there is a character named Bob. Bob is his name, and because of that, it is capitalized. I do think it's stupid that the name of the supposed one and only god is God, but what you gonna do? Call him Jehovah? Oh and by the way, I try to remember to capitalize God or Lord when referring to him by name, but I will never capitalize him or he or anything like that. Pronouns are not proper nouns (I probably wouldn't even if I was highly religious; it's just stupid).

I'm pretty sure the majority of us who post and comment here aren't 14 anymore

Yeah, just look at the posts so far. Most of us are much older than fourteen. Fourteen year olds usually steer clear of posting in Critical Thinking it seems.

Both sides will say these things, and neither side's opinion is presented in a degrading fashion, either to itself or to the other.

We aren't news reporters you know. We shouldn't have to avoid bias.

And being Catholic is not being a Christian, they're not the same thing AT ALL.

Christianity is defined by the belief that Jesus Christ was the messiah. Catholics believe this as well, and because of that, they are under the umbrella of Christianity.

Oh and by the way, I feel I must say I'm not entirely closed to the idea of a higher power. I myself am do not believe in any god, but I don't have problems with people who do. My problem is entirely with organized religion.

[Grandiagod]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

I just want to say all this sh*t about being biased is ridiculous.

In a debate you ARE biased, that's the freaking point. To take a side and defend it. There is no way to enter a debate without being biased. You can use unbiased facts to support your bias, but that is about as far as it goes.

[Laharl]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

Seriously, do you guys even learn the Ten Commandments? To "invoke" his name is blasphemous. I'd think that if someone was being blasphemous, YOU (or any Christian, or Jew, since he was their god first rofl) should be the one bashing them.

Exodus Chapter 20, verse 6.
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain."

Invoking the name of God is not blasphemous. Using it "in vain", which is to say, as a common word, is blaspheming, though. If I'm saying God, to talk about God, or to ask for a blessing or some such type of thing.

There's a distinct difference.

Perhaps in the Garbage Bin or Chit Chat, but you're pretty much safe from people who's only contributions are like that here. I may share their position on the topic (lol religion), but at least I try to be eloquent about it.

True, and I like to think we get along somewhat because of that. Afrobean is okay in my books.

I disagree. In my mind, if I disagree with them, then they are wrong in my opinion. How can I disagree with them if I don't think they're wrong?

I should rephrase. Not think the PERSON is WRONG, but that their opinion is wrong. Does that make sense? A person can still be a good person and deserving of respect even if they follow an ideal you do not. The personal attacks have been out of hand in here more often than not whenever religion is brought up. I know I've personally felt under the gun soley because it's me giving an opinion rather than for what I'm actually saying.

That's probably because as far as I've seen, it's true. I have yet to see any debate between an atheist and a Christian that didn't end up like that (ie "there is no proof that there is a god" and "oh well, I have faith").

Maybe I've been gone too long.

The symbiotic nature and vast expanse of the galaxy and how it intertwines so perfectly is, to me, proof there's a greater power at work, and when I say that, I mean a sentient type of power, that is able to think. Science can only observe and attempt to explain how each things works, and even if we as humans are able to comprehend one specific thing (let's say disease, which is something we've only had real understandings about in the last couple of centuries), it still doesn't mean that there wasn't a higher hand involved in the creation of that thing.

Faith, yes. I have faith there's a high power at work, just as an atheist has faith that there isn't a higher power at work. But, my point is that it's faith with reason and logic, and not just something I've been told since childhood and therefore believe.

We aren't news reporters you know. We shouldn't have to avoid bias.

I disagree. Going into an argument before you even know what it's about just to push an agenda is pretty stupid, if you ask me, and just leads to needless hurt feelings and ill-will. I mean, I know it's impossible to avoid bias (I'm actually debating creating a thread on an essay I think I might right just for the hell of it on why I think that the state of being without bias is literally impossible), but that bias to the point of being uncivil is pretty retarded.

Christianity is defined by the belief that Jesus Christ was the messiah. Catholics believe this as well, and because of that, they are under the umbrella of Christianity.

THANK YOU for understanding this. When people tell me that Mormons aren't Christians, I just look at them and ask them to define it. Funny thing, it usually has NOTHING to do with a belief in Christ just simply belonging to the Christian Coalition. Those are the kinds of people that give organized religions a bad name.

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

The symbiotic nature and vast expanse of the galaxy and how it intertwines so perfectly is, to me, proof there's a greater power at work, and when I say that, I mean a sentient type of power, that is able to think.

I just want to warn you from saying something like "Of course God must exist - just look at the world around you!"

Because, from Christianity's viewpoint, this is the world after sin entered it, paradise after being ruined.

[studmuffin51306]

Re: To debate religion or not, that is the question

I voted to keep things the same just because I think that religion really can be proven. I'm not saying I have the answers, but honestly there are scientific things that support religion as well and religion is not a subject based entirely on faith. People say that you can't be religious and intellectual. But science is just as much a religion as christianity in my opinion.