|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Philosoraptor the fact that religion has been used in the past to oppress, and subjugate people is not a problem with the concept, its a problem with the practice. in fact, for all, or i would say most of the times that religion has been used to oppress or subjugate there was usually an underlying factor. power. money. greed. a hidden agenda. take a look at the catholic church...killing scientists, because as a political institution it would look stupid if the earth revolved around the sun. i dont think there are many instances where religion in its pure form has been used to oppress or subjugate, and even if there are a few, its essentially meaningless seeing as there have been many atrocities committed by secularists and atheists. ryan great job. i cannot agree with you more. thank you very much for these guidelines, you have no idea how many times im in a debate and people start going off on the stupid things you mentioned should be avoided. i liked what you did with religion vs. science. essentially a lot of the times in religion vs. science the answer for religion is "there is an answer i don't know it. such is the nature of faith. as such, an argument of that nature is meaningless as all you will have are two people talking AT each other...which accomplishes nothing. in rule number 4...excellent. "who is right" always get messy. i usually try to keep it to a general religious idea in debates, to basic theological principles or philosophical principles. nothing specific that can spur a "who is right" argument. as for rule number 3, that usually only applies to "is there a god" arguments which in my opinion are pointless anyway. number 2. perfect. you have no idea how many times people will the "catholic priests" argument to condemn religion. number 1. THANK YOU!!! i was arguing with an atheist about religion, and i kept trying to keep it general. basic, broad religious concepts, which is possible as most religions, or most mainstream religions at least follow the same basic principles. my opponent however...insisted on bringing catholicism into teh debate...so i answered from judaism, saying that indeed catholicism was wrong in that respect, but that is not all religion. essentially it turned into me defending each individual religion against broad general attacks. i asked my opponent which religion he was most familiar with...which he had studied. when he answered "catholocism" i told him i would not debate him on religion in general, because he was not informed enough about religion in general to produce sound arguments. he accused me of using ad hominem attacks...and we both walked off. quite a mess. bashing generalities based on specifics is just stupid. thank you very much for your post.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jul 5, 2010 10:48:44 GMT -5
I just want to point out that the same could be said of communism. Just because a problem with something tends to only be a problem in practice, if that practice becomes widespread, it's not necessarily wrong to say that it is in fact a legitimate problem with that thing. If religion regularly leads to this sort of problem, then that is a legitimate argument against it. Of course, to make that argument one would need to seriously study all religious history to make a sufficiently educated argument. Please note I'm not trying to make that argument here; I'm only stating that an avenue to that argument might be possible if the evidence supported it. I'm still not quite sure about this one, though not being religious it wouldn't affect me personally. Actually I get what you're trying to say, but the wording seems a bit off. Any time you make an argument in a discussion, you are trying to convince someone that it is true. Perhaps it would be better to say that one shouldn't argue with the ultimate goal of converting one's opponent to their belief, only to present their side as well as possible. Or perhaps I'm just too stuck on semantics; I know that tends to be a fault of mine at times.  |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 11:08:59 GMT -5
i know what he was doing...and i understand what you were saying...what I was pointing out was that religion in its purest form...also prefacing this with the statement that i have not studied all of them, so i cant REALLY speak for all of them...would not allow for the crusades... part 2. it depends...if you are debating to debate you debate to win, not to convince the other person you are right. to win a debate you need not be right, only show that the other person is wrong  (it's true...try it.) if you are honestly arguing with a person to change their beliefs...and they change it based on your arguments...either they have weak faith in what they believe, or they aren't particularly intelligent. most people even after conceding a debate will believe what the believed prior to the debate. |
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 5, 2010 11:29:48 GMT -5
Nakor, what I was getting at in rule 4 was mainly this. It is fine to debate between beliefs, and I would encourage it, and sometimes it is good to lose such a debate because usually it means that your belief will be stronger, and more supported. However, for rule number 4, it should be followed that someone of one belief does not use their belief to tell someone of another belief that they are wrong. For instance, an atheist holds the religious belief that there is no god, while a theist holds the belief that there is a god. An atheist and theist are welcome to debate the existence of a god, but arguments such as "You're wrong b/c I believe there is a god" or "You're wrong because I believe there isn't a god" should never be made. Also, the point of such a debate should never be for the atheist to get the theist to abandon his/her belief in a god, nor should it be the goal of the theist to get the atheist to start believing. The debate is not about converting the other person, or proving that you're right, it's about supporting your belief and supporting your ideas and supporting your arguments. Such a debate is non-empirical, it has no definitive answer, at least not that we can find, so in such a case - it should only be debated for the sake of supporting your own side.
As a side note, this post isn't to say that all religious debates are non-empirical. Some of them do have a right and wrong, a true and false, and those debates should be debated to conclusion, until the right answer is found (ex. contradictions in the bible, corruption in a group of religious, historical religious debates, etc.)
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Jul 5, 2010 11:37:20 GMT -5
Actually it depends on which side of the argument you're on. Most formal debates have a statement as the subject, such as "Global climate change is primarily caused by human pollutants." The for side has to prove their statement, while the against side merely has to show they can't prove it. If the against side shows the for side is wrong, they win. However, the for side cannot win simply by showing the against side is wrong, because the against side doesn't really have a stance to argue against. (That is, the for side is responsible for showing evidence, while the against side merely needs to debunk whatever evidence the for side provides; it's much like the prosecution and defence in a court case, in that against -- the defence -- wins until for -- the prosecution -- proves its case.) Anyway. I get where you're coming from, so it's probably just semantics on my part. Changing beliefs tends to be a very slow, gradual process. All I meant to say was that arguing in a debate even in a way unmotivated by convincing the other person is still an argument that is designed to change minds. Showing something is true is the most basic way of convincing others it is true, even if that is not the mindset you hold going in. Nakor, what I was getting at in rule 4 was mainly this. It is fine to debate between beliefs, and I would encourage it, and sometimes it is good to lose such a debate because usually it means that your belief will be stronger, and more supported. However, for rule number 4, it should be followed that someone of one belief does not use their belief to tell someone of another belief that they are wrong. For instance, an atheist holds the religious belief that there is no god, while a theist holds the belief that there is a god. An atheist and theist are welcome to debate the existence of a god, but arguments such as "You're wrong b/c I believe there is a god" or "You're wrong because I believe there isn't a god" should never be made. Also, the point of such a debate should never be for the atheist to get the theist to abandon his/her belief in a god, nor should it be the goal of the theist to get the atheist to start believing. The debate is not about converting the other person, or proving that you're right, it's about supporting your belief and supporting your ideas and supporting your arguments. Such a debate is non-empirical, it has no definitive answer, at least not that we can find, so in such a case - it should only be debated for the sake of supporting your own side. As a side note, this post isn't to say that all religious debates are non-empirical. Some of them do have a right and wrong, a true and false, and those debates should be debated to conclusion, until the right answer is found (ex. contradictions in the bible, corruption in a group of religious, historical religious debates, etc.) Yeah, I follow lol. I'm just being picky again. Don't mind me. |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 5, 2010 11:52:57 GMT -5
ahh...nitpicking...what would debate be without it...but i believe ryan meant his post to be for informal debates as well  |
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 6, 2010 23:01:41 GMT -5
That's well and good, but the fact is, not one of the atrocities committed by secularists and atheists were committed in the name of secularism and atheism, whereas the list of atrocities committed in the name of religion is astoundingly large. religion is a medium through which hate, bigotry, intolerance, and oppression can spread like wildfire, because religion has the unique ability to impair rational judgment by replacing logical thinking and problem-solving with tradition and superstition. While it's true that not every religion that has ever existed on earth has suffered negatively from it, I still posit that this problem is a flaw in the whole, general idea of religion and not just one or two specific ones.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 7, 2010 0:43:31 GMT -5
and that, my friend, is where we must disagree. that is like saying that hammers are in essence murder weapons because so many people have been killed by hammer wielding homicidals. i will not deny that atrocities, terrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion. however i still do not believe that is a flaw in religion itself, rather a flaw in people. in fact, by your reasoning, ANY ideal could be seen as inherently flawed, because idealISM has lead to many atrocities.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 7, 2010 1:35:49 GMT -5
you know how lead had been used in paint for ages before it was generally phased out? adding lead to paint enhances the paint in a lot of ways. it aids in drying, increases the durability of the paint, and makes the paint more resistant to corrosion. there are a lot of good things to say about lead paint.
unfortunately, as more and more research was done, the toxicity of lead paint and the risk of damage to people caused it to be banned in most industrialized countries.
eventually, less dangerous, more advanced, more beneficial alternatives were developed.
was that too far-fetched of a simile? did that make sense? it's late. I think I got across what I'm trying to get across.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 7, 2010 1:43:58 GMT -5
yes...it was too far fetched. it made sense, but i do not think the world would benefit if religion was completely phased out. moreover i do not think that the adverse effects of religion outweigh the good. in addition, i do not think that the number of atrocities, and the severity of the atrocities would in any way decrease should religion cease to exist. where evil used religion, it would use something else.
|
|
Philosoraptor
Moon
dangling prepositions is something up with which I shall not put
Posts: 145
|
Post by Philosoraptor on Jul 7, 2010 1:58:26 GMT -5
Man, I squarely disagree with all three of those points. But there's no use debating, at this point. We can agree to disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 7, 2010 2:01:04 GMT -5
agreed |
|
|
|
Post by ladystardust on Jul 9, 2010 21:25:29 GMT -5
If you're one to learn by example, I'd strongly suggest the debate forum on www.leagueofreason.co.uk The debates are awe-inspiring. |
|
|
|
Post by Shaken Earth on Jul 12, 2010 13:38:38 GMT -5
Cool, next time you should do one on political debates |
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 12, 2010 13:59:05 GMT -5
It's impossible to debate religion because one side can just say "because" and that is a valid arguement.
|
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 12, 2010 18:23:05 GMT -5
clearly you have never debated religion |
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 12, 2010 23:18:26 GMT -5
clearly you have never debated religion Yes I have. I sat down for 5 hours with a few of my catholic friends. I hate circular reasoning so much. |
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Jul 13, 2010 9:34:55 GMT -5
clearly you have never debated religion Yes I have. I sat down for 5 hours with a few of my catholic friends. I hate circular reasoning so much. The Pope is right because the bible is right and the bible is right because the bible says so? |
|
|
|
Post by zAkAtAk on Jul 13, 2010 9:42:17 GMT -5
Yes I have. I sat down for 5 hours with a few of my catholic friends. I hate circular reasoning so much. The Pope is right because the bible is right and the bible is right because the bible says so?  |
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 13, 2010 10:18:23 GMT -5
well, it depends what you are arguing. usually when i debate religion, i ask that a few points be granted, then we argue based on that. ive had some good ones |
|
