is religion debatable

[Lickyfingerbum]

Theists and atheist will always argue.Its like a guy who likes white chocolate trying to convince the guy who hates white chocolate that it tastes great.

I'm pretty much new enough to these volconvo debates but after only a couple of weeks you can notice that the same arguments about religion are expounded post after post in increasingly more complex analogies and allegories. It seems obvious that the people who lead these debates are more than capable of realizing the ins and outs of both sides but consciously ignore what the other person is saying, boiling down to the canopy stand off of one of the following.

(A) I believe that God exists
(B) I believe that he doesn't exist

Because of the overriding urge of both sides to treat any topic as an opportunity to prove or disprove their FUNDAMENTAL belief in one of the above , all points of views in every particular "debate" about religion seems to narrow down to those above 2 questions.

It seems from nearly every religious thread here, that both sides for the most part are incapable of accepting contrasting beliefs over the existence of God.

Thats not debating. Can people forget what they believe for th sake of debating the thread when it comes to religion? Of course many thread pose the question of whether god exists or not so in those instances no..but many many topic here seem to be destroyed by the insistence of those adamant about their believe in the A and B above

If I hear the you cant prove God exists so its stupid line one more time!!!

[HelioPrime]

Of course we can debate.

But debate will never be won because two sides won't accept anything not seen within set of boundaries. These boundaries work in favor for each side and each side of the debate wants these boundaries to be accepted as true and absolute.

[rez]

Quote by: Lickyfingerbum Theists and atheist will always argue.Its like a guy who likes white chocolate trying to convince the guy who hates white chocolate that it tastes great. I'm pretty much new enough to these volconvo debates but after only a couple of weeks you can notice that the same arguments about religion are expounded post after post in increasingly more complex analogies and allegories. It seems obvious that the people who lead these debates are more than capable of realizing the ins and outs of both sides but consciously ignore what the other person is saying, boiling down to the canopy stand off of one of the following. (A) I believe that God exists (B) I believe that he doesn't exist Because of the overriding urge of both sides to treat any topic as an opportunity to prove or disprove their FUNDAMENTAL belief in one of the above , all points of views in every particular "debate" about religion seems to narrow down to those above 2 questions. It seems from nearly every religious thread here, that both sides for the most part are incapable of accepting contrasting beliefs over the existence of God. Thats not debating. Can people forget what they believe for th sake of debating the thread when it comes to religion? Of course many thread pose the question of whether god exists or not so in those instances no..but many many topic here seem to be destroyed by the insistence of those adamant about their believe in the A and B above If I hear the you cant prove God exists so its stupid line one more time!!!

God existing actually has nothing to do with anything really. It boils down to knowledge and how one goes about obtaining knowledge. In this case, its about how one goes about obtaining knowledge of the supernatural.

That is the main skeleton of it. The flesh contains debates like sin, faith, evolution, prayer...etc.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez God existing actually has nothing to do with anything really. It boils down to knowledge and how one goes about obtaining knowledge. In this case, its about how one goes about obtaining knowledge of the supernatural. That is the main skeleton of it. The flesh contains debates like sin, faith, evolution, prayer...etc.

^


Exactly the point of the problems with debate. Select atheists view from a point where everyone should realize God's just plain don't exist and any debate needs to center around that fact.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: HelioPrime ^ Exactly the point of the problems with debate. Select atheists view from a point where everyone should realize God's just plain don't exist and any debate needs to center around that fact.

And for a good reason. Many of the debates are concerned with more human concerns, such as morality, law, homosexuality, marriage or abortion to name a few.
It's no coincidence that theists and atheists usually take apposing views to these issues.
The concern is whether theists can justify claiming that all should live by a standard that they set.
What a theist believes is not important, what they try to force upon others is.

[Lickyfingerbum]

Quote by: rez God existing actually has nothing to do with anything really. It boils down to knowledge and how one goes about obtaining knowledge. In this case, its about how one goes about obtaining knowledge of the supernatural. That is the main skeleton of it. The flesh contains debates like sin, faith, evolution, prayer...etc.

....oh nooo

[Lickyfingerbum]

Quote by: rez God existing actually has nothing to do with anything really. It boils down to knowledge and how one goes about obtaining knowledge. In this case, its about how one goes about obtaining knowledge of the supernatural. That is the main skeleton of it. The flesh contains debates like sin, faith, evolution, prayer...etc.

could you explain briefly what you mean. Is this not pretty much as an atheist argument would pretty much go. Can a theist really argue around such a dimension..

[Lickyfingerbum]

Quote by: Soylentgreen What a theist believes is not important, what they try to force upon others is.

Well don't atheists try and force their opinion on theists equally as much. And I think a theist does not necessary have to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew. Is it not true that while an atheist my be motivated to stand up against organized religions, which traditionally in the view of many ( and in reality) have abused their position to force socially constructed beliefs upon others , they attack venomously all beliefs in god without regard?

[Rog]

Quote by: SoylentGreen The concern is whether theists can justify claiming that all should live by a standard that they set. What a theist believes is not important, what they try to force upon others is.

Hum, how about you replace theist with athiest?

[SoylentGreen]

Lickyfingerbum;Well don't atheists try and force their opinion on theists equally as much.

An opinion is one thing, every one is allowed to have opinions. But just because someone is of the opinion that god hates gays that does not give them the right to try and pass laws that ban gays.

And I think a theist does not necessary have to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew.

Well according to a dictionary definition of theism.
belief in the existence of a god or gods
Then yes a theist does by definition have to be a Christian, Muslim or Jew. Providing of course you mean jew as in spiritual sense not ethnic origin.

Is it not true that while an atheist my be motivated to stand up against organized religions, which traditionally in the view of many ( and in reality) have abused their position to force socially constructed beliefs upon others , they attack venomously all beliefs in god without regard?

Venomously? Because I disagree with your position then it is automatically seen as being spiteful or malignant?
How about atheists ask for good reasoning to support the position of all beliefs. Then quite easily point out the complete lack of reason given for supporting all beliefs.

[rez]

All of this is discussed in this thread.

The developer and the meaning of run

Also stated before in another thread

Quote by: rez The disagreement of course is the path that theists take when explaining reality. Each piece of knowledge we gain is a stepping stone. Over time these stepping stones grow and expand and create knew paths for us to travel on. As we move along these stepping stones we discover new knowledge that was previously unknown, thus furthering the stepping stones of knowledge we can walk on. People discover knowledge based on previous knowledge. Knowledge builts on itself just like the stepping stones. What these stepping stones of knowledge do is create a bridge to the other side or litteraly an explanation that answers our questions about reality. What theists do is totally ignore the stepping stones we currently have and make huge leaps to potential stepping stones that we could find in the future. So while we have the beginning stages of the bridge built, theists take it upon themselves to create the ending part of the bridge, while totally ignoring the beginning part of the bridge. A creator of the universe could very well be a discovery in the future, but we can't make that leap in knowledge because past knowledge does not lead us to that type of stepping stone. We must build on what we already know to make a rational and logical explanation. Theists are trying to fit a puzzle piece that does not fit with the current puzzle pieces. That is why they are irrational in their philosophies.

[SoylentGreen]

Quote by: Rog Hum, how about you replace theist with athiest?

Except atheists are not making a claim. Just showing the inadequacy of the theist claim.

[HelioPrime]

The knowledge debate is just an example of one extreme and one side.

It's the focus where everything starts with nothing. There is no such thing as God because God has to be invented. Then the debate evolves into using knowledge to defeat the knowledge of God and show it as false.

But it's still just a belief system rooted in the idea God doesn't exist and everyone should accept that fact. Sill just an opinion based debate popularly supported by most non theists.

[rez]

Quote by: HelioPrime It's the focus where everything starts with nothing.

Its called having no bias and assumptions. It helps along discoveries. It takes away the politics.

In the end it depends on what explanations work and which ones don't work. The ones that work get the credence.

You don't start with the answer and work your way backwards. You start with what you have and then work your way to the answer one step and a time.

There is no such thing as God because God has to be invented.

There doesn't need to be a claim about god. What god? Whos god?

God is currently useless when explaining reality, so why would anybody claim it doesn't exist? We don't know and right now we don't need to know. Let's leave it at that.

But it's still just a belief system rooted in the idea God doesn't exist and everyone should accept that fact. Sill just an opinion based debate popularly supported by most non theists.

Its a belief system based on the way in which a human being obtains knowledge. Assuming an answer and working your way back is not the way things are done. Its impossible and irresponsible to work like that. Not even theists operate like this in their everyday life. It makes no sense. Its totally irrational.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: rez Its called having no bias and assumptions. It helps along discoveries. It takes away the politics. In the end it depends on what explanations work and which ones don't work. The ones that work get the credence. You don't start with the answer and work your way backwards. You start with what you have and then work your way to the answer one step and a time.

Of course is bias. Your starting from a basis that supports your own viewpoint and then building from there. Thats selective use of information to support your own debate.

Saying the God is nothing more than knowledge that has to be taught is not an absolute fact. It still remains your opinion on the matter because not everyone will agree with you on what you hold as a fact.

There doesn't need to be a claim about god. What god? Whos god? God is currently useless when explaining reality, so why would anybody claim it doesn't exist? We don't know and right now we don't need to know. Let's leave it at that.

There you go. Off on the "well a mechanic fixes my car so God doesn't exist."

People accept both scientific discoveries and God but you discount and demand either we accept only science as a valid explanation for everything known and unknown. Thats yet another opinoon Rez, not a statement of fact.

[rez]

Dude, I am sorry but you totally didn't understand what I was saying. I am not going to respond to what you said because it will lead us into something else that will only make this more complex then it already is.

Please go back and re-read my last two posts and edit your last post. If you need me to clarify, then let me know.

[Rogue Cardinal]

15,000 religions in the world.....oh yeah.....it's completely debatable. They can't all be right. there can be only one.....on the other hand they could all be wrong.

[Lickyfingerbum]

To those that say that this thread is already covered- it's not really. those other threads argue over the validity of evidence over belief. This thread argues that almost any debates about religion are pointless because staunch theists and atheists are unwilling to accept each others core values EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE. Already this thread has turned into pretty much the same as other debates in that the original focus of the thread has become distorted by th strong views of those who believe in God and those who don't. Those who believe in a god retort eventually with the same arguments as every other religious debate so far and the atheists act vice versa. Both sides already know what the other argument is but still continue to dominate threads with the same predictable arguments.


The other day i asked those who have had religious experiences if they could explain them. Nearly all the posts were " don't expect much its all a load of crap". But the thread was not about whether you believed in it, in fact those who have no faith in god didn't have any input into the thread apart from attracting those with no experience to the topic to defend their faith and the thread became dominated and pointless.

I think the problem is that bot sides feel they can win and convert the others when it is clear from the hundreds of threads that that doesn't happen.

How do we solve tis or can we? Thats the the thread in a nut shell.

[Lickyfingerbum]

Quote by: SoylentGreen Except atheists are not making a claim. Just showing the inadequacy of the theist claim.

See what I mean

[Jack]

How do we solve tis or can we?

By being specific with the topic being debated. With a tightly focused the OP the thread has less chance to wander and turn into a generic theist vs. atheist grand debate on the general existence of gods. I've seen several threads that address a single aspect of theism or atheism. Debates aren't always concerned with "converting" those you're debating against. Most times it's a matter of each side presenting their strongest argument in defense of their position. Those reading the thread get to decide which side presents the better argument.