If Religion is About Belief...

[Nakosis]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

 

[Secret Chief]

just sophistry

A plausible but misleading or fallacious argument then?

 

[Lain]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

Not sure how you define "belief" but to me they can be proven or dismissed. "I believe Abraham Lincoln existed," "I believe the Earth will turn today," "I believe 1+1=3," "I believe if I keep toast in a hot pan it will eventually burn," and so on can all be proven or dismissed as false to me. I see nothing different about the list of beliefs that constitute a religious teaching.

Edit: stupidly enough when typing that post I almost burned my toast. I have gone some way to proving that belief. It's still edible though.

 

[We Never Know]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

In my opinion it only becomes a debate when someone religious tries to convince someone else that a god does exist.

Or when someone non-religious tries to convince someone with a belief/faith that a god doesn't exist.

As you said its belief/faith that a god does exist held by a person that can't be proven or disproven.

 

[halbhh]

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

We certainly can agree on that last part. It's sophistry we see much of the time when people try to construct arguments against a religion.

As to my understand/viewpoint that we orbit a star, you could call that merely my 'opinion' I suppose, but to me personally that would be a mislabeling.

In just the same way, it would be a mislabeling to call my faith 'only opinion' also, and even as a perfect analog, exact parallel. Both are realities based on objective events/observations to me, so are not just 'opinion' to me, then. To me, an opinion is more like a guess or theory, without much observational support. (though there is nothing at all wrong with having a theory not yet proven, and I'm not suggesting a theory is somehow automatically wrong until after having strong observational support that is unique supporting evidence. Both kinds are valid for a person to have.)

But yeah, if people try to argue with me about my observations of external factual reality, that would tend to be ( often be) be sophistry on their part, yes.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

No, use a different version of religion and what we debate is different:
"Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings. "
Then this is a form of religion:

...
Definitions
Atheism is the comprehensive world view of persons who are free from theism and have freed themselves of supernatural beliefs altogether. It is predicated on ancient Greek Materialism.
Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own inherent, immutable, and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that humankind, finding the resources within themselves, can and must create their own destiny. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve it. It holds that human beings are capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism’s ‘faith’ is in humankind and their ability to transform the world culture by their own efforts. This is a commitment that is, in its very essence, life-asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation that is impossible without noble ideas that inspire us to bold, creative works. Materialism holds that our potential for good and more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

Our Vision

 

[Nakosis]

I see nothing different about the list of beliefs that constitute a religious teaching.

How do you go about proving disproving the religious belief?

 

[Nakosis]

No, use a different version of religion and what we debate is different:
"Religion is the most comprehensive and intensive manner of valuing known to human beings. "
Then this is a form of religion:

How do you win the debate if I can say whatever I want about God knowing it is undisprovable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you go about proving disproving the religious belief?

Not answering for @Lain
Well, I just believe differently. I don't disprove anything. I just act differently. I.e. moral and cultural relativism.

 

[Lain]

How do you go about proving disproving the religious belief?

A core belief to my religion is "Jesus was crucified." This is a historical claim, and one would use the methods of that field in order to determine if it is true or not to the extent that it can be determined to be true or not (not every science has the same sort of evidence possible). Another one is "God exists and His existence can be known through natural reason," and with the means of the fields of philosophy that touches on you can prove or disprove it. One just goes down the list of beliefs put forward and proves or disproves them as you would anything else.

Some are contingent on others, so it's faster to knock out the foundations if they can be knocked out and then the whole thing is immediately disproved.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How do you win the debate if I can say whatever I want about God knowing it is undisprovable?

I don't win nor lose. It is a draw.
Do you want to know how to do that using reductio ad absurdum?
It comes in 2 variants BTW.

 

[Nakosis]

We certainly can agree on that last part. It's sophistry we see much of the time when people try to construct arguments against a religion.

As to my understand/viewpoint that we orbit a star, you could call that merely my 'opinion' I suppose, but to me personally that would be a mislabeling.

In just the same way, it would be a mislabeling to call my faith 'only opinion' also, and even as a perfect analog, exact parallel. Both are realities based on objective events/observations to me, so are not just 'opinion' to me, then. To me, an opinion is more like a guess or theory, without much observational support. (though there is nothing at all wrong with having a theory not yet proven, and I'm not suggesting a theory is somehow automatically wrong until after having strong observational support that is unique supporting evidence. Both kinds are valid for a person to have.)

But yeah, if people try to argue with me about my observations of external factual reality, that would tend to be ( often be) be sophistry on their part, yes.

So your belief is factual because it is whatever you happen to believe?

So what's the debate?

 

[Nakosis]

A core belief to my religion is "Jesus was crucified." This is a historical claim, and one would use the methods of that field in order to determine if it is true or not to the extent that it can be determined to be true or not (not every science has the same sort of evidence possible). Another one is "God exists and His existence can be known through natural reason," and with the means of the fields of philosophy that touches on you can prove or disprove it. One just goes down the list of beliefs put forward and proves or disproves them as you would anything else.

Some are contingent on others, so it's faster to knock out the foundations if they can be knocked out and then the whole thing is immediately disproved.

This is your belief right?
So lets say my belief is that a historical Jesus never existed and God cannot be known through any form of natural reason.

How are we going to prove who is right?

 

[George-ananda]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

I do not hold that my religious/spiritual beliefs are based on faith but rather on best analysis of the evidence and argumentation.

So, at least I am someone you can debate with.

 

[Lain]

This is your belief right?
So lets say my belief is that a historical Jesus never existed and God cannot be known through any form of natural reason.

How are we going to prove who is right?

For the claim on Jesus I would suppose we'd both do our own historical research, learn the origins of various means historians use to determine things and if they are valid or rightly applied, discuss and argue about how much a person can even learn from history, apply all of this to other historical events and see if we are satisfied with the results or not, argue about it, and then present final arguments concerning the matter and see who has the better one, and then agree to it. The same thing almost concerning that claim about God, but that'd probably just be a discussion about philosophical arguments already made and trying to convince one another about metaphysical worldviews. And then through it we'd see who is right by who has the better argument.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Or faith, then what is there to debate about?

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

One might be persuaded by someone's else's opinion but based on what? Since I can say whatever I want and not worry about supporting it because it's a belief, not a fact.

Not that I'm judging as I do it too but I realize I can say pretty much whatever I want with almost no concern about proving it. Certainly a materialist like myself has a more difficult job needing to support some statement they made.

A religious debate, isn't it all just sophistry?

The way that I see it, however, is that a very large number of people who make faith or believe claims, go on to the next step, and declare them to be "Truth" (capital "T").

If I say that "this is what I believe," I have no expectation that you should believe it, too, nor anyone else, either. But when I make a truth claim, this takes on a new aspect -- especially if it concerns a matter of fundamental importance or imminent danger, such as climate change and the need to address it. So for that, it becomes necessary to provide evidence for the claim -- and this has been, and is being, provided in spades.

I could claim, to someone who has annoyed me grievously, "God will get you for that, bozo." But if, instead, I say, "I will kill you for that," the latter is a threat for which I can be tried and punished, while the former is not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The way that I see it, however, is that a very large number of people who make faith or believe claims, go on to the next step, and declare them to be "Truth" (capital "T").

If I say that "this is what I believe," I have no expectation that you should believe it, too, nor anyone else, either. But when I make a truth claim, this takes on a new aspect -- especially if it concerns a matter of fundamental importance or imminent danger, such as climate change and the need to address it. So for that, it becomes necessary to provide evidence for the claim -- and this has been, and is being, provided in spades.

I could claim, to someone who has annoyed me grievously, "God will get you for that, bozo." But if, instead, I say, "I will kill you for that," the latter is a threat for which I can be tried and punished, while the former is not.

But Truth is not limited to religion. You can also find it in politics and philosophy.

 

[metis]

It's all based on opinion isn't it?
Nothing can be proven or dismissed.

Exactly. But it's still creates some good mental exercise, but proof isn't always available for many things we may see or experience.

 

[Nakosis]

For the claim on Jesus I would suppose we'd both do our own historical research, learn the origins of various means historians use to determine things and if they are valid or rightly applied, discuss and argue about how much a person can even learn from history, apply all of this to other historical events and see if we are satisfied with the results or not, argue about it, and then present final arguments concerning the matter and see who has the better one, and then agree to it. The same thing almost concerning that claim about God, but that'd probably just be a discussion about philosophical arguments already made and trying to convince one another about metaphysical worldviews. And then through it we'd see who is right by who has the better argument.

As to who had the better argument, we might disagree.

 

[Nakosis]

I do not hold that my religious/spiritual beliefs are based on faith but rather on best analysis of the evidence and argumentation.

So, at least I am someone you can debate with.

Well, I can see we can debate about debating at least.