To debate religion or not, that is the question

[Grandiagod]

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/...ad.php?t=42989

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by Squeek

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Squeek

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Laharl

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.

Originally Posted by Laharl

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.

Originally Posted by Laharl

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.

Originally Posted by Laharl

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.

Originally Posted by Laharl

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?

Originally Posted by MixMasterLar

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.

Originally Posted by Squeek

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").

Originally Posted by Squeek

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).

Originally Posted by cavernio

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.

Originally Posted by Kilga

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.

Originally Posted by MixMasterLar

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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]

Originally Posted by Laharl

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]

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.

[Laharl]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

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]

Originally Posted by studmuffin51306

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:

Originally Posted by Laharl

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by some of you

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]

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.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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]

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]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

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]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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]

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.