To debate religion or not, that is the question

[T3hDDRKid]

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]

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

[iggymatrixcounter]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

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.

[T3hDDRKid]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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]

Originally Posted by afro

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]

Originally Posted by T3hDDRKid

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]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

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]

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]

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]

Afrobean, I love your sig.

[WillTalbot]

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]

Originally Posted by WillTalbot

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by studmuffin51306

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Grandiagod

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.

Originally Posted by Afrobean

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]

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.