The End of Religious Debates

[Neo Deist]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

 

[Neo Deist]

Yes I am well aware that the thread title alone is going to draw in trolls and this thread won't actually end anything...I made it because I can.

 

[Quetzal]

If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

This is a great point which is why I tend to stay away from the religious side of RF. Good folks over there, just seems a bit fruitless. Then again, politics can be the same way sometimes.

 

[lovesong]

I agree that these arguments can be quite fruitless and a waste of time unless the person's belief, like you said, causes harm to others. The only problem is that is the case more often than it should be. Then again, what constitutes as harm is up for debate too.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

This is a great point which is why I tend to stay away from the religious side of RF. Good folks over there, just seems a bit fruitless. Then again, politics can be the same way sometimes.

Sometimes?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

I don't, unless their beliefs are being used to push certain behaviors which have no other benefit than executing a religious creed. In which case I'm not arguing against their religion so much as arguing for secular policy.
When I'm debating with religious people, it is not with the intent to educate or convert. More the intent to exchange beliefs for the better understanding both my own arguments and theirs. Because I think people are ill served to stay in bubbles where they only talked to those of similar beliefs. But I agree, people are just going to be disappointed if they're looking to change minds by text forum. If it's going to happen, rare that it does, you probably won't know it. And if it doesn't happen, trying to force the issue won't make it more likely.

 

[Sunstone]

If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

As you know, some religious practices and beliefs lead to harm. Sam Harris, for instance, has argued that faith -- which is not in itself a belief, but rather a basis for belief -- can and sometimes does provide a means of justifying harms that would not otherwise be justifiable; thus encouraging them. Supposing Harris were right, would there not be a moral burden imposed on people who valued the well being of themselves and others to at least in some cases oppose faith?

 

[David1967]

You make a good point ND. Dont know many people who have changed their minds due to religious debates. However,I personally enjoy respectful religious discussion. Not push my beliefs (which are evolving), but rather to learn of other beliefs and the cultures that spawn them.

 

[Neo Deist]

As you know, some religious practices and beliefs lead to harm. ...would there not be a moral burden imposed on people who valued the well being of themselves and others to at least in some cases oppose faith?

Absolutely.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

I think the medium is to talk about each other's experiences, use our own means to express our experiences, and get to know people and find interest in their experiences because that is how we come to our beliefs, faiths, or ways of seeing things.

I don't see anything wrong with religious debates, though. We can talk about religion all day and night. However, what did I Say.... debates is proving proving that we are right and arguments are proving the other wrong. It's alright to share how you feel and what you feel is right. (It's alright to debate). I just wish people can get beyond "oh, I don't mind talking about religion...." and just be a bit more open minded with What-Ifs.

Do people actually challenge their own beliefs? For example, when someone taught me two and two was four, I didn't go by their opinion, I actually tested it out an amateur as I was as a kid. When someone told me that a comma is supposed to go after a clause, writing creatively, I broke from that (can't you tell), but then there is a balance if I want people to understand what I write.

As long as we don't take interest in other people even if their beliefs or views one hundred percent completely conflict with our own and as long as we don't see outside the box, there won't be any learning.

Are we here to learn? or just prove ourselves or others right?

It's alright to talk about god exists and this is why. And visa versa. It's alright to say "god is fact" and visa versa. It's about learning. Take interest in why and if you challenge, challenge with the intent to learn not defensiveness. I mean, one member just completely cut me off when I asked on my OP is there any one thing about their religion they may be uncomfortable with. Not false. Not fake. Not wrong. Just uncomfortable. I love my mother to death but that doesn't means I'm always comfortable around her.


So anyway, that's my essay. If we took interest in each other, maybe the perspective of things on RF would change; if that's true, maybe the OP can get beyond "you have a point" if people are willing to say.... let us talk about it...

So.. what do you mean by that Deist... what are your thoughts.... and guys hip hop. No flowers on the wall.

Talk.

Night folks.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

Sounds sensible to me. I've made the point before that I don't argue with deists, panentheists, etc. And I'm not anti-theistic. Regardless though, some theistic beliefs and some non-theistic philosophies are harmful, and I reserve the right to sook up about them.

 

[JakofHearts]

Plenty of evidence that can be discussed for the Christian faith.

But your second point is correct.

 

[Valerian]

Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

I think you have a good attitude. Thanks. We Christians should be so considerate.

I guess the problem for Christians is that many of us feel obligated to witness to what we consider the truth. But we go about it so badly so often.

At a minimum, I would like to know what happens once we die. Cannot let that go unexamined until satisfied.

 

[Neo Deist]

At a minimum, I would like to know what happens once we die. Cannot let that go unexamined until satisfied.

There is no way to know. Death is the great unknown. If anyone ever dies, actually goes through a legal death (not clinical - NDE) and then comes back to write a book, we will have some answers. However, we know that is pretty much impossible. Once the body starts to decomp, the blood pools (lividity), and rigor sets in, it is game over for a physical return.

Wait long enough and you'll have an answer to your question, as will we all.

 

[Neo Deist]

Plenty of evidence that can be discussed for the Christian faith.

But your second point is correct.

What evidence do you think exists outside of a holy book, personal opinion, or warm and fuzzy feelings?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think you have a good attitude. Thanks. We Christians should be so considerate.

I guess the problem for Christians is that many of us feel obligated to witness to what we consider the truth. But we go about it so badly so often.

At a minimum, I would like to know what happens once we die. Cannot let that go unexamined until satisfied.

1. No one can prove the existence of God (whatever it means to you). Quoting some man made holy texts is not proof. Citing a near death experience is not proof. Talking about strange dreams is not proof. Feeling warm and fuzzy inside when you pray is not proof.

2. No one can disprove the existence of God. Your personal beliefs against God are not proof. The Big Bang is not proof. Evolution is not proof. Science is not proof. Medicine is not proof. As we evolve so does our knowledge and understanding.



If someone has a particular belief about God(s), whether it is theistic, atheistic or anywhere in between, why argue with them if their beliefs don't actually harm anyone else, the environment or the universe? Why feel compelled to educate, admonish, or convert them? Just leave them be.

There are two different beliefs yes, but only one acknowledges itself as such. By definition atheists reject recognizing their own faith. We all want to know the truth, so we should all give ourselves a chance at figuring it out; We should all be able to question our own beliefs.

 

[JakofHearts]

What evidence do you think exists outside of a holy book, personal opinion, or warm and fuzzy feelings?

Apparently, you ain't looking hard enough. I've said this many times before, it's not a matter of lack, but rather an apprehension to accept, meaning it's more psychological than evidential. Atheists and the like just don't want to believe.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Atheists and the like....

Hahahaha.
On a more serious note, I believe all sorts of stuff. And am willing to admit ignorance on plenty more.

 

[Neo Deist]

Apparently, you ain't looking hard enough. I've said this many times before, it's not a matter of lack, but rather an apprehension to accept, meaning it's more psychological than evidential. Atheists and the like just don't want to believe.

Yeah, ok.

Was looking for a bit more from you on the "plenty of evidence" statement, but in truth I was not getting my hopes up. No religion has any substantial evidence. Covered in the OP.

And if you are not familiar with me, I spent 30 years as a Baptist but now identify as a deist. I believe in God, but it has nothing to do with holy books or warm and fuzzy.

 

[psychoslice]

I think you have a good attitude. Thanks. We Christians should be so considerate.

I guess the problem for Christians is that many of us feel obligated to witness to what we consider the truth. But we go about it so badly so often.

At a minimum, I would like to know what happens once we die. Cannot let that go unexamined until satisfied.

What if you discovered that nothing happens after we die, would you still be satisfied ?.