To debate religion or not, that is the question

[T3hDDRKid]

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

All that we've proven is that debating about whether or not religion is debatable is possible

I'm hurried, and I won't really be available till tomorrow.. But isn't debating about debating religion still debating religion?...

Besides, as I pointed out before, it's possible to debate particular points of religion. (ex. Did the Flood happen or not?)

I'll be here Saturday.

[iggymatrixcounter]

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

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.

If you can actually prove with facts that that's the case instead of just saying "it is morally ok but wrong." then I don't think they would flame you out of the forum. If you knew what you were talking about instead of just preaching your opinion then you can hold your ground. (I'm just talking in general not saying you specifically have no idea what you're talking about)

[Grandiagod]

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

I'm hurried, and I won't really be available till tomorrow.. But isn't debating about debating religion still debating religion?...

No, it's debating the debatability (real word?) of religion, not religion itself.

[Laharl]

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

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

^Thank you for getting at the root of it.

It really isn't worthwhile. As Afro has said, it always boils down to the whole "NO I'M RIGHT AND UR WRONG" thing, every time.

I've been on the losing end of it far too many times to have NOT noticed. Despite my best intentions to talk about something, or bring up a valid point, someone always pops in and says in some way, shape, or form, that everyone who follows any form of organized religion is stupid, and proceed to namecall the rest of the thread.

[studmuffin51306]

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

Hold on.
THe things you are saying Afrobean, is typical of any debate.
Suppose I am strongly for taking baths instead of showers. Well I'm sure a whole lot of other people are goign to support the shower side. When I bring up all the pros of baths (how relaxing it is, wastes less water, yada yada) and they bring up all the pros of showers (you don't sit in the same dirty water you've been sitting in, massaging heads feel better, yada yada) I will still be a fan of baths, and they will still be a fan of showers. The only difference here is that people don't feel as strongly about it as they would something like where they came from and where they're going (religion). And honestly, if you ever get in a flaming match with a christian, they aren't being Christian in that situation. If a wimpy Christian can't handle an argument, the last thing that should be done is to retaliate by flaming someone. And if that happens then the debate is already over because that person isn't following their religion. I think what we need top realize here is that what we're trying to ban is hypocritical religion arguments. In a non-hypocritical situation, Atheist will bring up his point, CHristian will bring up his point, Atheist will give Scientific evidence, Christian will point out the faults in the scientific evidence, Atheist will say "oh well, you still have no scientific proof", and CHristian will say, "religion isn't about Science, it's about faith" but also mention instances where Science has proved religion to be correct (WHICH ARE VALID AFROBEAN!), and then the Atheist will say that those aren't valid for whatever reason, and then Christian will say they are as valid as any argument the Atheist put up to debate, and in the end we've gotten nowhere just like any other debate.

I have a real problem with run-on sentences.

[Afrobean]

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

religion isn't about Science, it's about faith

See.

This is why you can't debate it effectively.

How can you debate something which has no basis in the real world, and instead depends on explaining things using a higher being that by his definition is impossible for us to even understand?

Because, in the end, it really is "I trust what I see and I argue that we should study things based on real world happenings which are observeable" versus "it doesn't matter what you say because there is a higher being who affects everything even though you can't see him or even sense him in any way."

Really, that bothers me. How can you think it's a fair debate if you can simply say "oh well doesn't matter you say because there is a higher being that you can't see or anything." There is no concrete proof of any existence of God, yet religions say that scientists are wrong when they come up with theories built on concrete things?

Honestly, I don't care what you believe about further levels of existence. The fact of the matter is though, that we are on Earth, in this level of existence, and things outside of it are irrelevent, even if you believe that they affect it.

oh and btw:

THe things you are saying Afrobean, is typical of any debate.

Yeah, because atheists and christians are easily compared to someone who likes to bath or shower. Yeah religions are no more important to people than what way they choose to clean themselves.

[Laharl]

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

Afrobean, I love your sig.

[WillTalbot]

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

God gave us free will for a reason. If humans could prove that God exists, all humans would worship God endless to secure their trip to heaven. By doing this, this in a way takes away from out free will and most of our lives would just be serving God. So by not having any scientific proof that God exists, we have free will to do as we please.

[Grandiagod]

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

God gave us free will for a reason. If humans could prove that God exists, all humans would worship God endless to secure their trip to heaven. By doing this, this in a way takes away from out free will and most of our lives would just be serving God. So by not having any scientific proof that God exists, we have free will to do as we please.

So you are saying if God gave proof he existed we would have no choice but to believe in him so instead he just fakes us out so we can choose not to believe in him?




Excuse me sir. But HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Lawed Flogic

[studmuffin51306]

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

Afrobean, no.

I'm saying there's just as much concrete proof for religion as there is Science, because everything in Religion and Science is an educated guess.

Yeah, because atheists and christians are easily compared to someone who likes to bath or shower. Yeah religions are no more important to people than what way they choose to clean themselves.

It's called an analogy. It was comparing something on a minor scale to something on a major scale. I use comparisons a lot to explain things. Get over it.

[Grandiagod]

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

Studmuffin, is gravity an educated guess? How about black holes, pulsars, newtonian physics? All real, and found through the use of science.

However a good part of science is unproven, but thats exactly what science does, try to prove and find out things. Religion is happy with being unproven.

[Afrobean]

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

Afrobean, no.

I'm saying there's just as much concrete proof for religion as there is Science, because everything in Religion and Science is an educated guess.

So there is as much concrete evidence in favor of creation and intelligent design as there is in evolution and big bang?

I'd say definitely not. If there were concrete evidence of something, it would be taken seriously by the scientific community, because that is part of science's function: to explain the world around us using observations (concrete, or at least measureable things such as radio waves, etc.) and logic.

And if you disagree, what's the concrete evidence of intelligent design and evolution. And please, don't bring up bananas.

Yeah... now that I think about it, I might have chosen not the best word to describe what I meant. By "concrete", I really mean all things which are observeable, whether they be tangible or not.

It's called an analogy. It was comparing something on a minor scale to something on a major scale. I use comparisons a lot to explain things. Get over it.

That's not an analogy. That's a hyperbole, and a bad one at that.

[Kilgamayan]

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

I think what studmuffin is trying to say is that religion has just as much concrete evidence of itself in its own setting as science does in its own setting.

Shit starts blowing up when you put one medium in the other's setting. More people should listen to Egon and not cross the streams, because bad things happen when you do.

[studmuffin51306]

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

Studmuffin, is gravity an educated guess? How about black holes, pulsars, newtonian physics? All real, and found through the use of science.

However a good part of science is unproven, but thats exactly what science does, try to prove and find out things. Religion is happy with being unproven.

Yes, I am saying that everything in Science is an educated guess. ALl the things you mentioned are only true in certain cases, and have not been proven with all variables considered.

Religion is not happy being unproven. RELIGION IS PROVEN! Religion has been accepted as fact for much longer than Science has, so I would say that my fact is more credible than yours.

I'd say definitely not. If there were concrete evidence of something, it would be taken seriously by the scientific community, because that is part of science's function: to explain the world around us using observations (concrete, or at least measureable things such as radio waves, etc.) and logic.

And if you disagree, what's the concrete evidence of intelligent design and evolution. And please, don't bring up bananas.

Yeah... now that I think about it, I might have chosen not the best word to describe what I meant. By "concrete", I really mean all things which are observeable, whether they be tangible or not.

You are not the scientific community, and you do not decide what the scientific community accepts. The atheistic scientific community does not accept it because they are atheists and will not change their mind. There is a large percentage, whether you believe it or not, that is in favor of religion and intellegent design.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science.shtml

It would be cool if you could prove to me how Bananas came about. And don't say they were breeded by scientists, because they've always been there.

[Afrobean]

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

rofl @ saying religion is right because it's older

also, rofl @ saying creation science is a legitimate science

also, rofl @ saying there is a large percentage of scientists who are in favor of intelligent design

By the way, creationism is considered by most to be a pseudoscience, putting it in the same categories as such jokes as astrology and UFO-ology.

ps

It would be cool if you could prove to me how Bananas came about.

You obviously missed my reference. I was referring to the popular video in which a man claims to have proof of the existence of God simply because of the shape of bananas. I'll try to find a link to it and edit it into this post.

EDIT: rofl


I found that while looking up kinds of psuedosciences which would be easily recognizeable as jokes.

EDIT: here it is: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...6&q=banana+god

It really is a good laugh.