To debate religion or not, that is the question

[Laharl]

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

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.

From my viewpoint, Paradise was a state of mind more than it was a specific location. It was bliss, which is to say, ignorance of evil. God said "Alright guys, you know now the difference between good and evil, so you're equipped enough to go out in the world and work the soil yourselves instead of relying on this stuff I grow for you. GG HF GL."

The story of Adam and Eve is incredibly vague, and most likely an allegory for something else entirely, as were most stories in the Old Testament.

[T3hDDRKid]

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.

That's true. There are so many scientifically proven occurances from the Bible. Obviously, some things can't be proven - Jesus turning water into wine, for example. However, things like the flood can be proven scientifically. I will now put a few of the major evidences here.

1. This is one of the largest pieces of evidence - polystriatic fossils. This means a fossil that is through more than one layer of rock. Now, sure, it may be possible for a fossil to be in a couple of layers of rock, but there are huge fossils through a dozen or more layers. Atheist scientists claim that each rock layer took a long time (varying from thousands to millions of years) to form. Is a bone going to stick out of the ground for even a hundred years? No, it would be worn away. So how would a fossil be sticking out of the ground for thousands, millions of years? Or maybe a global flood piled thousands of tons of mud on it, quickly covering it. Seems more logical to me.

2. "When the early Spanish explorers reached North America, they were startled to discover that the Hopi Indians told a tale that was remarkably similar to the story of Noah's Ark. In fact, no fewer than 200 cultures worldwide tell of the legendary flood upon the earth. Yet in all the cultures, the story of Noah is practically identical in all the different sorts of ancient languages, whether it's Persian, Babylonian, ancient Egyptian, Chinese, Sanskrit, and so forth. The only thing that changes occasionally is the name of Noah. Not only does the story appear in the Christian Bible, but also in the Koran." http://www.theoutlaws.com/unexplained9.htm

Although that alone doesn't prove the flood happened, it is a strange coincidence that over 200 cultures have a story of a great and often worldwide flood which one man and his family survived by being on a boat, along with all the animals of the world.

3. There are fossils on top of both Mount Everest and Mount Ararat. Fossils of marine organisms.

There are more points, but these are the three largest ones that I could think of off the top of my head.

And don't even get me started on the Big Bang theory.

To keep from double posting:

From my viewpoint, Paradise was a state of mind more than it was a specific location. It was bliss, which is to say, ignorance of evil. God said "Alright guys, you know now the difference between good and evil, so you're equipped enough to go out in the world and work the soil yourselves instead of relying on this stuff I grow for you. GG HF GL."

The story of Adam and Eve is incredibly vague, and most likely an allegory for something else entirely, as were most stories in the Old Testament.

Your first point could be partially right. Adam and Eve were ignorant of evil, as was the rest of the world. However, once Eve took the bite out of the apple (or desired it - a moot point), sin entered into the world, certain animals became carnivores, and it all went downhill from there.

Edit: I felt this needed some support from the Bible (seeing as you're debating something from the Bible, it's allowed.) Genesis 2:8 "Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed." That means there was a specific area of paradise. Unless Adam and Eve traveled all around Pangaea (for it existed.. That's another debate entirely), and traveled back to the garden for food. Which I find unlikely.

As for humans and animals being carnivores only after the fall, read Genesis 1:29,30, during which, in summary, God says that to humans and all animals, he gives every green plant for food. The first mention of meat being eaten is in chapter four.

Now about the story of Adam and Eve being "incredibly vague".. Actually, it's quite specific. Let me tell you a story. Give me an example of an "incredibly vague" story from the Old or New Testament. True, there were some analogys, as in the dream of a statue made of different metals. (Daniel 2:31-45) There were more than a few parables in the New Testament, and Revelation.. Well, that was a big vision bestowed on.. John? I'm a lil shaky in that area. However, as far as I know, there are no stories like that in the Old Testament..

[studmuffin51306]

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

http://www.creationmoments.com

not really sure about it, but they play it on my favorite christian rock radio station all the time. This is mainly about scientificly proving evolution incorrect. I know, this may seem off topic, but it goes with religion being a scientific topic and belonging in the critical thinking section just as much as any other valid topic.

[T3hDDRKid]

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

Hm. It's kind of disorganized, but seems like it might be of some use. Thank you for the link. But let's try to get this BACK ON TOPIC -

Should religion be debated on these forums or not?

Contradicting my prior not-well-thought-out statement, I think that if religion topics are carefully moderated, and any stupid "God Doesn't Exist Religion is STUPID!" posts result in punishments.. I think it could work. Despite what a lot of people (ex. Afrobean) like to tell you, religion is debatable (uh-oh, I think I spelled that wrong.) Maybe large topics such as "Does God exist?" cannot be proved either way, but individual points can be (though some people won't believe the truth.)

Edit: Also, quoting from the Bible should be allowed in most cases. When trying to debate something that was recorded in the Bible, such as the Flood, or something about Jesus, it is certainly pertinent. Also, something from Christian doctrine supported by Scripture should be allowed. Often, though, it should only be used as support, and not the main evidence of something.

[Afrobean]

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

religion is debatable

...

Show me one instance in which an atheist debating on an internet forum was convinced to believe in God afterward. Or, show me one instance on an internet forum where a religious person was arguing and was convinced to no longer believe in God.

Yes, it can be discussed in a civilized manner, but in the end the debate is "I believe what I see" versus "I have faith that there is a higher power". If the person debating on either side can be so easily convinced to switch sides, it wasn't a real debate in the first place.

So, then, the function of the debate falls to the listeners (or, in this case, readers).

Debates can affect those who are "on the fence" who hear (or in this instance, read) them, but when it comes to religion, most people are already dead set in their ways and an arguement against whatever they believe, no matter how logical, sensical, etc. it is, will never pursuade anyone anyway.

Really, religion can't be debated properly, not only because of the nature of religious debates (identified above and in my other posts), but also because people already believe one thing and you're going to have a hard time talking them out of it. Basically religious debates are all for naught. The debaters will not be willing to switch sides, and the readers have already established a side in the debate as well and will also not switch sides.

EDIT: one more thing I wanna say: Believing the bible to be 100% factual makes no sense at all. I have no problem with you reading the book and taking away learnings from it symbolically, and in doing so, apply the lessons to real life and be a better person because of it. This can actually be done with any book, be it a true story or fiction. It's when you say "uh no noah really did live for hundreds of years" that I'm bothered (even funnier was when that guy tried to justify people living for hundreds of years in that video linked to in the "SMART SQUAD [ASSEMBLE]" thread. He said that higher oxygen levels would allow select individuals to live for stupidly long amounts of time. It was really funny.)

EDIT*2: the story of a global flood is also present in Greek mythology. Personally, I would say that there probably wasn't literally a GLOBAL flood, much more likely is that the middle east area had a large flood and the story got around. As for the Native American story, I have never heard that before, and if it's true, I'd say it's a coincidence, since the Native Americans are known for having MANY, MANY STORIES which they used to explain certain things, much like greek mythology, or even modern day Christian beliefs.

[T3hDDRKid]

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

How do people become dead set in their ways in the first place? Many are brought up in a certain religion. Some stay in that religion, and some fall away and either become inactive or atheist. What affects that? The things they see, hear, and put into their heads. If you're a Christian that is constantly bombarded by people telling you that you're wrong, and few or no people are around to pray for you/hold Bible studies/etc, you will eventually begin to doubt your faith, and that is the first step to not believing. Also, there are people who are brought up with no faith, but eventually join a particular religion. What affects that? They look at the relevant facts and see what makes the most sense, and either stay atheist (or agnostic, I suppose), or join a religion. Maybe 95% (a complete guess by me) of people are already dead set in their ways, but I'm here debating, proving the facts.

On a side note, try not looking through a hundred lines of text and picking out one topic to debate.

EDIT: one more thing I wanna say: Believing the bible to be 100% factual makes no sense at all. I have no problem with you reading the book and taking away learnings from it symbolically, and in doing so, apply the lessons to real life and be a better person because of it. This can actually be done with any book, be it a true story or fiction. It's when you say "uh no noah really did live for hundreds of years" that I'm bothered (even funnier was when that guy tried to justify people living for hundreds of years in that video linked to in the "SMART SQUAD [ASSEMBLE]" thread. He said that higher oxygen levels would allow select individuals to live for stupidly long amounts of time. It was really funny.)

EDIT*2: the story of a global flood is also present in Greek mythology. Personally, I would say that there probably wasn't literally a GLOBAL flood, much more likely is that the middle east area had a large flood and the story got around. As for the Native American story, I have never heard that before, and if it's true, I'd say it's a coincidence, since the Native Americans are known for having MANY, MANY STORIES which they used to explain certain things, much like greek mythology, or even modern day Christian beliefs.

Higher oxygen levels may have been part of the reason, but it was not just that. First of all, how do you not know that God simply allowed people to live longer at that time. If God started off with two people, it would not make sense for them to die off at age 70ish if they need to populate the earth. "And God said, 'Make a baby every nine months until you finally become barren, having left only fifteen kids.'" Um, no! Besides, there are more factors, better genes being one of them. If our genes are all descended from the original two people, and people are generally stronger if they have more genes (thus the reason inbreeding makes people weak and sickly), it makes sense that the people with the most genes to have the longest life spans. Also, take into account things such as pollution (there was none at the time), UV rays (many creationist scientists believe there was a protective dome of water around the earth at the time, blocking most or all harmful rays from space [trust me, I can defend that]), and diet.

Also, doesn't it seem a bit too much of a coincidence that there are over 200 almost identical stories (except for the name) of the Flood? It seems unlikely that it would be spread the Middle East (where you claim it began), through desert-ridden Africa, into the tundra of northern Russia, and that the Native Americans would develop an identical story on their own? It is my belief (and that of many scientists) that the stories of the flood was descended from the global flood, passed by word of mouth down from Noah (and eventually recorded in the Epic of Gilgamesh.) The Native Americans already had the stories passed down from Noah before they migrated across the Bering Strait in the winter, when it was frozen, to Alaska, and down to the current-day United States. Also, the soil around the Grand Canyon contains oceanic fossils. Possibly the ocean covered the Grand Canyon at the time, but then how would the Colorado River be carving it out over millions of years at the same time? Seems like a conflict of evidence on the part of atheists.

[studmuffin51306]

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

Well if that's all he could argue, then let him.
RELIGION IS DEBATABLE!
Nobody knows, and therefore, nobody knows.
Ahaha, that sounded funny.
In debates like this, there may be no winner, there may be no one converted, but you leave the debate seeing all sides of the argument. This is necessary for questioning our existance. If we only ever see one side of it, then that is all we will ever see.
That sounded funny too.
If we make our decisions based on what we grew up with, then we will only ever decide what we grew up with.
(this is great)
If we make our decisions on every opinion thats out there, we can logically accept what we think is right.

You're right though Afrobean. Even though I grew up in a non-CHristian home, went through elementary school insulting Christian kids, and then randomly converted in middle school, I will not be converted by any of these arguments because I already have complete faith that God is real judged by what I've already discovered for myself.

[Afrobean]

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

On a side note, try not looking through a hundred lines of text and picking out one topic to debate.

rofl the whole "is religion debateable" thing is the PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD haha

ps

but I'm here debating, proving the facts.

talk about me being biased haha

pps making up statistics is bad for your health. If you're going to make up stats, at least don't give definite numbers to it. Simply say "I would guess that the majority of people..." rather than "Maybe 95% of people..."

[T3hDDRKid]

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

rofl the whole "is religion debateable" thing is the PURPOSE OF THIS THREAD haha

Alright, it is. But I brought up the example of the Flood being debatable, and you didn't address it whatsoever. Instead, you completely ignored it and said that it wasn't debatable.

pps making up statistics is bad for your health. If you're going to make up stats, at least don't give definite numbers to it. Simply say "I would guess that the majority of people..." rather than "Maybe 95% of people..."

Okay. I guessed a figure, and said I was doing so. You're still avoiding my rebuttals.

And somebody PLEASE tell me: Is it debatable or debateable? Or something else?

Thank you, Squeek! Also, it's not like I'm saying everybody switches because of debates.. It's just a large reason. I guess you're not part of the majority. Woot.

[Squeek]

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

debatable. Google.

Plus "debateable" just looks retarded.

Also, my reasons for leaving Catholocism totally differ from anything you could imagine, so I'd prefer not being generalized =)

Especially after going much farther into the religion than about 90% of Christians / Catholics in the world who aren't in the sect itself. Yeah. It was fun.

[T3hDDRKid]

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

Looks like Afrobean left. Well, anybody is welcome to bring up more topics to debate, but I think that we've proven that religion is, in fact, debatable.

It just needs to be very closely monitered, and moderators will need to make sure that any flaming is soon punished and deleted. Please, if anybody does not agree with me, bring your opinions up. I'll probably be going to bed within half an hour, but if you don't post soon enough, I'll be up in the morning again to talk to anybody who wants to.

Yeh, I'ma play a bit of FFR and get going. Be back in twelve hours.

[WillTalbot]

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

Religion debates are very interesting so I'll vote them in

[iggymatrixcounter]

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

Course everyone knows that I'm the best when it comes to debating religion XD.

Actually debating is against what a "christian" would stand for. If the people you are talking to have no intention of listening and just want to find fault or whatever, you're not supposed to let them debate with you. In fact the very format of a debate is to just see who can win. Since you're starting with a gray area anyways, no logical conclusion can occur.

I say that if you want religion "debates" you're going to have to set up to in a way that one guy starts on one subject and everyone bombards him with questions on that subject.

At least that way an answer can usually be found, I even tried it I think but no one got what I was doing and it got confusing because people were taking my questions and answering them, which since they were wrong lead to one thing so I dropped it. (But it didn't get locked XD.)

IMO, you want to debate religion, go to a religion site. If you don't think you can hold your ground there, then you have no business making statements for or against religion because you probably have not a broad enough knowledge to back up what you say.

[Grandiagod]

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

Religion is debatable. It can be argued for or against. That's what makes a debate.

However, the real question is Is debating religion practical or worthwile?

Look at it this way, debates are not intended to change the mindsets of those debating, they are to convince an audience in favor of one side or another. Can this be done with a topics as black and white as "Religion is fake. Religion is real"? I'm not sure it can.

PS. I voted for it because I really like debating anyway, especially religion.

[Afrobean]

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

Okay. I guessed a figure, and said I was doing so. You're still avoiding my rebuttals.

What? You mean your bogus claims that a layer of water in the air would allow for CERTAIN SELECT INDIVIDUALS to live to be hundreds of years old, while the majority of people still lived for much less than that? Or your claim that "having more genes" would do it? Or how about your claim that because there may be oceanic fossils in the Grand Canyon that it is impossible for the Canyon to have been carved by the Colorodo River? Or how about your claim that this debate was proven on your side WITH ABSOLUTELY NO REASON TO SAY THAT, AS THE DEBATE IS STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE.

Honestly, I didn't want to say anything about those things you said because, to be frank, they're stupid. Additionally, they're irrelevent. My comment about not believing the bible is relevent, because it shows that you can't site things from the Bible as being factual, and because of this, using the Bible as a factual source in a debate is very ineffective. Your comments are completely irrelevent to the topic at hand (is religion debateable?), because all you're doing is responding to my statement that the bible is unreliable as a source of facts with a myriad of EVEN LESS RELIABLE THINGS THAN THE BIBLE ITSELF.

Really, when you said "well maybe people lived longer BECAUSE GOD WANTED THEM TO" or whatever was MUUUUUUUUUCH better than saying "well there was water and genes and blah blah blah." You can't use science to prove the existence of gods, and doing so just makes you look stupid.

ugh

Well, anybody is welcome to bring up more topics to debate, but I think that we've proven that religion is, in fact, debatable.

UGHGGGHHH

All that we've proven is that debating about whether or not religion is debatable is possible (and even then, look at the path we're going down... you're making outlandish claims, and I'm doing my best to not just call them stupid, but then you drag me down).

Besides, you can't "prove" things with a debate, unless the WHOLE OTHER SIDE OF THE DEBATE CONCEDES. This will not happen ever. For example, suppose we were talking about abortion. How would you feel if you gave all your reasons for why it's bad, then I came in and gave my reasons for why it's ok, then you left, then I said "well I guess we proved that abortion is good, eh?"

IMO, you want to debate religion, go to a religion site. If you don't think you can hold your ground there, then you have no business making statements for or against religion because you probably have not a broad enough knowledge to back up what you say.

I don't think they'd take too kindly to an atheist popping up out of nowhere and declaring that the way they live their life, despite being morally ok, is wrong, and that even without faith in a higher being, an individual can still live a moral life without what they would call sin.

@grandia: you've basically said what I've been trying to get at. Debating religion gets none of us anywhere, and in the end, it'd turn into a shouting match between two people. Ok... so moderators can lock the thread if that happens. Well then, why not lock the thread BEFORE that happens.

oh yeah one more thing:
Debating about whether or not any god exists gets us no where, but you can still have debates about other religious things that actually go somewhere. In order to avoid the debate being for naught though, you'd probably have to avoid the entire concept of God and either ignore his existence or lack thereof completely, or accept his existence for the sake of arguement.