Does religion count as a valid argument?

[Halofan48]

I'm interested to know what people think about this.

In debates that don't directly involve religion, does using religious quotes count as a valid argument for that debate? Like does a religious argument have valid standing in a debate about abortion, rights, or politics if they do not involve religion as part of the debate.

example of debates not on religion: abortion, political debates not involving religion, legalization of illegal drugs.

examples of debates involving religion: Creationism vs. Evolution, Atheists...they go to hell, Why to believe.

Just for people who are a bit confused, do you think arguments based on religion (like saying: "You can't do this because it's against god's will") in debates that are not on religion (see above) count as valid arguments?

What do you think?

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Halofan48 I'm interested to know what people think about this. In debates that don't directly involve religion, does using religious quotes count as a valid argument for that debate? Like does a religious argument have valid standing in a debate about abortion, rights, or politics if they do not involve religion as part of the debate. example of debates not on religion: abortion, political debates not involving religion, legalization of illegal drugs. examples of debates involving religion: Creationism vs. Evolution, Atheists...they go to hell, Why to believe. Just for people who are a bit confused, do you think arguments based on religion (like saying: "You can't do this because it's against god's will") in debates that are not on religion (see above) count as valid arguments? What do you think?

Personally when I'm debating politics and other topics, I don't bring in my religious beliefs. I believe in the seperation of church and state, so it doesnt really factor in for me.

I'm a Libertarian. i think that legalizing drugs would be a good thing. The government is so corrupt, they're using the 'war on drugs' to send thousands of people to jail for petty drug use where they are used as slave labor.

I don't like abortion, but I'm uncertain whether I think it should be legal or not.

[Halofan48]

I also think religion doesn't have place in debates that aren't about religion. I wish people would recognize the separation of church and state more often, though.

[lindsay7]

Quote by: Halofan48 I also think religion doesn't have place in debates that aren't about religion. I wish people would recognize the separation of church and state more often, though.

Personally I believe strongly that the separation of church and state protects my religious freedom. Protects it from crazy oppressive churches that would love to get involved in government and tell us all what to believe

[Jack]

If a person's entire belief system, on every subject, is solely based on Biblical (or other holy book) teachings and they refuse to think for themselves, then I'd have to accept that those are their chosen opinions. I respect their right to hold them. I do not, however, have to respect the beliefs themselves and would feel no hesitancy in challenging those beliefs or declaring them inappropriate for a non-religious debate. While our opinions are an integral part of our personality, they are not us. We are more than our opinions.

[Fangrim]

In so far as using religious argumentation on nonreligious subjects, it's no different than using other worldviews, like Lockean rights or fascist statism.

Using an example from the OP, a libertarian might argue that the illegaliziation of drugs is wrong because it infringes on individual liberties. A statist, however, is fine with government control.
At that point, you have two irreconcilable worldviews, so the argument is basically done.

This is analogous to using religious argumentation. At the point that you have a Christian appeal to the Bible oppose a Muslim appealing to the Koran (or an atheist who appeals to some other random philosophy), neither side will accept the other's argumentation.

My basic point is that using religion is no different than using any other philosophy or ideological background. If the religion's basic premises are accepted, then sure, go ahead and use it. But if not, it's as useless as a fascist appealing to revision of Marxist theory debating against a Lockean rights theorist.

[Technosoul]

It also depends on who is debatng who, if two Christians were debating each other about a topic then they might employ the Bible or whatever.

You mentioned the topic of abortion, well, you could debate it from a moral standpoint, form a scientific standpoint, from a legal standpoint,
etc.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Halofan48 I'm interested to know what people think about this. In debates that don't directly involve religion, does using religious quotes count as a valid argument for that debate? Like does a religious argument have valid standing in a debate about abortion, rights, or politics if they do not involve religion as part of the debate. example of debates not on religion: abortion, political debates not involving religion, legalization of illegal drugs. examples of debates involving religion: Creationism vs. Evolution, Atheists...they go to hell, Why to believe. Just for people who are a bit confused, do you think arguments based on religion (like saying: "You can't do this because it's against god's will") in debates that are not on religion (see above) count as valid arguments? What do you think?

Depends on the situation, the argument, and the quote.

[rez]

LOL, god the creator and ruler of reality is not allowed to be used in discussions about politics and social matters? How can you separate the ruler of the universe from what goes on in the universe?

Separation of church and state exists because people actually don't take the idea of a magical being in the sky poofing things into existence serious. It is separated from the issues that actually do exist, so things can actually get done. We need a way to separate the magical thinkers from the critical thinkers.

[Morality Games]

LOL, god the creator and ruler of reality is not allowed to be used in discussions about politics and social matters? How can you separate the ruler of the universe from what goes on in the universe?

Quite easily. His existence, aside from being uncertain, cannot be conclusively demonstrated to relate to politics and social matters.

[Cephus]

Since religious belief is not rational to begin with, using a blatantly irrational, illogical and often just plain silly religious claim to back up a political or philosophical position seems a bit daft. If your only support is "my invisible friend said so" then your position is pretty much irrelevant.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: Cephus Since religious belief is not rational to begin with, using a blatantly irrational, illogical and often just plain silly religious claim to back up a political or philosophical position seems a bit daft. If your only support is "my invisible friend said so" then your position is pretty much irrelevant.

'Belief' is not rational and arguments are generally about putting things in rational terms, but there is sound reasoning in religious texts. I can accept some quotations as authentic. Like, "let he who has never sinned cast the first stone," and things like that, since they give practical advice.

But "because God said so" responses are not acceptable, and it is unclear why a person with that attitude is in an argument to begin with.

[rez]

Quote by: Morality Games Quite easily. His existence, aside from being uncertain, cannot be conclusively demonstrated to relate to politics and social matters.

to a theist, god's existence is certain.

without god, there would be no politics and social matters. God created those things, and since he created political and social matters, then god has every right to be brought into the discussion.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: rez to a theist, god's existence is certain. without god, there would be no politics and social matters. God created those things, and since he created political and social matters, then god has every right to be brought into the discussion.

Maybe, but feelings of certainty, while a basis for argument, are not a mechanism of the activity. Typically, both sides of an argument feel certain that they are in the right. It is on basis of this feeling that they undertake the logical activity of 'arguing' or putting all the information out in the open and refining it through rigorous analysis to determine which positions are the most correct ones.

So, their feeling of certainty may prompt them to insert God into the discussion, but like any other idea, the concept of God is only relevant so long as it can be shown to pertain to the situation, and that depends on 'casual relation'.

For example, I can prove there is a casual relation between writing on a computer and pressing computer keys down because I can challenge my opponets to write responses to my posts without moving computer keys at all, or by video taping myself typing on keys with letters appearing across the screen. Theists can't prove there is a casual relation between God and who wins an election, so the extent to which their argument "God chose the winner" matters is very low (at least in a logical sense).

[Cephus]

Quote by: Morality Games 'Belief' is not rational and arguments are generally about putting things in rational terms, but there is sound reasoning in religious texts. I can accept some quotations as authentic. Like, "let he who has never sinned cast the first stone," and things like that, since they give practical advice.

That may be a good idea, but the fact that it appears in the Bible isn't what makes it a good idea. Claims like "the Bible says so" fall flat in any rational debate.

But "because God said so" responses are not acceptable, and it is unclear why a person with that attitude is in an argument to begin with.

Heck if I know. I guess if they let people stand on the street corners talking to the mailbox, they'll let anyone do it. :)

[gela]

to a theist, god's existence is certain.

Thats nice; but he is useless in a debate against athiests.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Halofan48 I'm interested to know what people think about this. In debates that don't directly involve religion, does using religious quotes count as a valid argument for that debate? Like does a religious argument have valid standing in a debate about abortion, rights, or politics if they do not involve religion as part of the debate. example of debates not on religion: abortion, political debates not involving religion, legalization of illegal drugs. examples of debates involving religion: Creationism vs. Evolution, Atheists...they go to hell, Why to believe. Just for people who are a bit confused, do you think arguments based on religion (like saying: "You can't do this because it's against god's will") in debates that are not on religion (see above) count as valid arguments? What do you think?

While there is a contextual element to consider, in general using an unsupported claim as evidence for another unsupported claim isn't a tenable form of debate.

For example, "Xenu doesn't want us to use mental health drugs so we shouldn't use them." versus "Mental health drugs have been shown in studies to treat and cure those suffering from mental illness." Which statement is the more compelling argument?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim In so far as using religious argumentation on nonreligious subjects, it's no different than using other worldviews, like Lockean rights or fascist statism.

Nope. You're wrong. Other worldviews have the potential to be based on facts rather than religion which is based on nonsense.

The rest of your argument suffers from the false analogy fallacy. Remember that we can reach a true conclusion and still have an invalid argument. The argument below is a sound argument because it uses valid logic and all it's premises are true:

Premise 1: Mental health problems are debilitating.
Premise 2: Certain drugs treat and cure mental health problems.
Conclusion: It's desireable for mental health patients to take some drugs.

We can reach the same conclusion through invalid reasoning:

Premise 1: Jesus wants us to take mental health drugs.
Premise 2: People who take mental health drugs love Jesus.
Conclusion: It's desireable for mental health patients to take certain drugs.

What we see here is the "reasoning" that most theists use: invalid logic used to support conclusions which may be true. Knowing theists, usually they're not true....

[Fangrim]

Quote by: Zhavric Nope. You're wrong. Other worldviews have the potential to be based on facts rather than religion which is based on nonsense.

So it's a fact that we all have natural rights which are inalienable, granted to us in the state of nature?

It's a fact that the proletariat must rise up against the bourgeoisie?

It's a fact that the greatest moral duty is in serving the State?

It's a fact that we should seek the greatest good for the greatest number of people? It's a fact that pain is an intrinsic evil, and that pleasure is an intrinsic good?

The theories, philosophies, and worldviews of Nozick, Nietzsche, Rand, Hobbes, Sorrel, Marx, Aquinas, Fangrim, Zhavric, Isherwood, Average Joe...whether they be utilitarian, statist, libertarian, biopolitical, discursive, or "common sensical," can all be construed as FACT?


Zhavric, seriously now, you're going to contend that any worldview about whether a policy is "good" or "bad", whether an action is moral or immoral, whether an effect is positive or negative, that any worldview about these things inherently has a leg up on religion?

You're getting into deep water, and I don't think you're going to be able to swim out of this one, so just let it go.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Fangrim So it's a fact that we all have natural rights which are inalienable, granted to us in the ...

Your horrible use of the red herring fallacy aside, all those things are rational and possible. Cosmic jewish zombies aren't. So, basing a world view on what you think the cosmic jewish zombie has telepathically imparted to you is ridiculous.

If you honestly believe that the phrases...

"We have human rights because it's beneficial to to individuals and groups to treat others as they wish to be treated."

... and...

"We have human rights because a cosmic alien named Xenu mandated that we have rights because we're alien souls living in human bodies."

... are on equal logical footing than your logic / world view is inferior to mine.

Zhavric, seriously now, you're going to contend that any worldview about whether a policy is...

Fangrim, I'm not in the mood to entertain your straw men arguments. I'm not going to spend pages of everyone's time repeatedly explaining to you how untenable your argument is because it doesn't actually address the one I've made. Either have the guts to debate what I'm actually stating or don't post.