|
Post by Lex on Jul 13, 2010 10:36:55 GMT -5
One thing I've noticed about a lot of the Christians that I've talked to is that when you ask them a simple question about their beliefs, not even in a condescending manner, they automatically take it as an offensive comment. "WHAT!? Are you trying to change my RELIGION!? What are you, an ATHEIST!?"
It's like they're so insecure and so unsure of what they believe in, that they're paranoid of their mind being changed.
|
|
|
Post by bombmaniac on Jul 13, 2010 13:45:21 GMT -5
yeah...dont bother with such people...theyre too insecure in their beliefs to be able to discuss it...
|
|
Silverrida
Moon
Infinity - So far away yet around us at the same time
Posts: 112
|
Post by Silverrida on Jul 16, 2010 7:53:24 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.) Now, most of what has been said in this thread I agree with whole-heartedly; however, I take an issue with this. You are right in saying that the idea of a debate is to support a side as strongly and with as much evidence as possible, and it is not about specifically proving if you're right or wrong. However, the goal of every debate should be an agreement between the two sides on one side's idea that is more logical than the others, or a compromise of ideas that is more logical than either original idea. I understand where your coming from with the idea that there is a lack of empirical evidence to support either side but really this is where debate is needed most. Debate is used to further our knowledge on subjects that cannot be empirically proven. If there is a point that CAN be empirically proven, debate becomes meaningless.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 16, 2010 10:11:08 GMT -5
The point is that your goal should not be to prove the other person right, it should be to prove that you're not wrong
|
|
Cortney
Star
[AWD:0c15]The Objectioner
The Bown
Posts: 885
|
Post by Cortney on Jul 16, 2010 10:50:03 GMT -5
1. Not all religions are the same, and you do not know all religions. This means that it is always inappropriate to speak out against religion as a whole. Any problem with a religion that you might see or have, is not a problem with all religions, and therefore you cannot use 'religion' as an all encompassing term. I disagree with this. Personally, I dislike the idea of religion to begin with. You provided a cropped definition from Wikipedia, but I'd like to reference the entire paragraph that defines religion according to that article: Religion (from O.Fr. religion "religious community," from L. religionem (nom. religio) "respect for what is sacred, reverence for the gods,"[1] "obligation, the bond between man and the gods"[2] is the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or more in general a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.[3]The very general definition is "a set of beliefs explaining the existence of and giving meaning to the universe," and even there I already disagree with it entirely. I believe the universe just is, there is no inherent meaning. And, that's without even considering the faith and worship involved when defining the word on a more specific level. I enjoy my blanket statements about religion. I dislike every part of it, and would be much happier in a world where religion were nonexistent. I enjoy discovering the origins of our universe - that's science. However, when you try to add meanings and spirituality in the mix, that's religion, and I'm opposed to it. Capitalizing the word "God" when referring to the central being of a monotheistic religion is proper grammar. Capitalizing the word "Him" when referring to "God" is following a religious standard, and I'd rather not partake in that. Sorry to come in and go all Negative Nancy up your ass, but yeah. Religion annoys me. XD Also, The point is that your goal should not be to prove the other person right, it should be to prove that you're not wrong Validating your view as opposed to trashing your opponent's is typically the goal when debating philosophy and abstract ideas. If you move over to the arena of science, the two debating views often contradict and cannot coexist, in which case validating your claim and invalidating your opponent's are one in the same.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Jul 16, 2010 14:59:13 GMT -5
Cortney - so long as your blanket statements of religion are indeed blanket statements over all religion (which yours seem to be) then it is ok to make such statements and dislikes. People saying that religion is bad b/c of *insert example from specific religion here* are making a logical flaw in their debate.
|
|