Why Debate the Existence of God, I Mean, What's The Point?

[Alex_G]

What came first, the belief or the behavior?

Well it depends on what belief and what specific behaviours you are talking about. I don't think a general 'chicken or the egg' analysis is adequately sophisticated to describe.

Because clearly various beliefs and behaviours alike can precede a belief in god, just as the can come after. Sometimes beliefs or behaviours or even conventions can impact the belief in god and likewise such a belief in god can go on to affirm or reject further beliefs and any relevant behaviour.

All the while it's still true that a change in such a belief in god has the potential to modify any further beliefs and behaviours rooted in it, as could happen as a result of debate.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Well it depends on what belief and what specific behaviours you are talking about. I don't think a general 'chicken or the egg' analysis is adequately sophisticated to describe.

Because clearly various beliefs and behaviours alike can precede a belief in god, just as the can come after. Sometimes beliefs or behaviours or even conventions can impact the belief in god and likewise such a belief in god can go on to affirm or reject further beliefs and any relevant behaviour.

All the while it's still true that a change in such a belief in god has the potential to modify any further beliefs and behaviours rooted in it, as could happen as a result of debate.

Thing is, I believe that a psychopath will behave as a psychopath whether he is a theist or an atheist. And people do not act like psychopaths because of their beliefs or non-belief, they act like psychopaths because that is what they are.

 

[Alex_G]

Thing is, I believe that a psychopath will behave as a psychopath whether he is a theist or an atheist. And people do not act like psychopaths because of their beliefs or non-belief, they act like psychopaths because that is what they are.

Well a discussion of psychopathy is something else. Its a personality disorder, a complex entity in definition and cause. It however doesn’t prove beliefs in the general population as therefore having no potential effect on how people act, behave and engage with their surroundings.

For you to invoke the idea of the 'psychopath' as exemplifying the sort of thing that is what it is regardless of belief suggests that you also consider a 'non-psychopath' to be the very opposite, the 'belief affecting behaviour' creature that im talking about. So perhaps you're agreeing with me on some level.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Is there any point in debating the existence of God?

I don't think it really matters in the overall scheme of things. Personally, the debate is practically useless in light there is nothing outside the scope of humankind taking any real notice of the dilemma that we as humans seem to enjoy bantering back and forth about.

 

[icehorse]

I agree with Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett (who I know I'll summarize poorly):

1 - I don't care what other people do in private, as long as it doesn't adversely affect society. If you want to have and practice religious faith behind closed doors, I have no issues.

2 - I DO care how religious beliefs adversely affect society in general:

a. Religious parents often subject their children to varying degrees of religious indoctrination. This practice should be discouraged. As an alternative, at an appropriate age we should teach children comparative religion, and allow them to make this important life choice for themselves.

b. Religious people often attempt (and sometimes successfully!!), to change the curriculum of public schools to suit their beliefs. For example, in the U.S. about a 1/3 of high school Biology teachers have given up teaching evolution. This is not a victory for society, this is a large step backwards, towards the dark ages.

c. Religious people often attempt to alter scientific research, such as halting stem cell research.

d. Religious people often put their dogma before human well being. For example, the Catholic church's policies have boiled down the stance that "while AIDS is bad, condoms are worse". This attitude has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of unnecessary deaths, and untold suffering.

The list goes on and on... homophobia, misogyny, corporal punishment, child abuse, sectarian violence, and so on, all often undertaken "in the name of religion X".

The OP asked about God, not religion. But in practice the two are usually inseparable.


-----------------

"without love in the game, insanity's king"

 

[Iti oj]

Is there any point in debating the existence of God?

Paradigm war

 

[Sir Doom]

Is there any point in debating the existence of God?

Strictly existence? Not really. Its all the surrounding beliefs that are worth debating though. As we'll see shortly...

I agree with Hitchens, Dawkins, and Dennett (who I know I'll summarize poorly):

Then you'll have to own the words yourself, my friend.

1 - I don't care what other people do in private, as long as it doesn't adversely affect society. If you want to have and practice religious faith behind closed doors, I have no issues.

I have a strong issue with you thinking I ought to hide my faith from you. I'm not going to do anything behind closed doors in order to pander to your delicate sensibilities. I do, and will act as I believe. You will do the same. This is called equality.

2 - I DO care how religious beliefs adversely affect society in general:

Does this mean you don't care about non-religious beliefs that adversely affect society in general? I hardly think so. Which means religion is no different than anything else in this regard, Is it?

a. Religious parents often subject their children to varying degrees of religious indoctrination. This practice should be discouraged.

First, you say 'to varying degrees'. Is it your position that all degrees of this behavior ought to be discouraged? And how, do you propose we perform said discouragement?

As an alternative, at an appropriate age we should teach children comparative religion, and allow them to make this important life choice for themselves.

Parenting issues should be mandated from... which authority? Appropriate age is... what age according to this authority?

b. Religious people often attempt (and sometimes successfully!!), to change the curriculum of public schools to suit their beliefs. For example, in the U.S. about a 1/3 of high school Biology teachers have given up teaching evolution. This is not a victory for society, this is a large step backwards, towards the dark ages.

Tell that to the Amish. They would likely describe it as moving forward. What makes you right and them wrong?

c. Religious people often attempt to alter scientific research, such as halting stem cell research.

Do you find it useless to debate the morality of any scientific endeavor? Do you think only religious people feel this way? Do the ends justify the means so long as the ends are 'scientific knowledge' ? I hardly think so. In any case, stem cell research has NOT been halted at all. So... you know... non-issue.

d. Religious people often put their dogma before human well being. For example, the Catholic church's policies have boiled down the stance that "while AIDS is bad, condoms are worse". This attitude has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of unnecessary deaths, and untold suffering.

Wow. You're going to lay the blame of death by AIDS on the Catholic church? I'm sorry, but I'd be much more inclined to point to simple human ignorance and apathy. Has an atheist ever died from AIDS? Yes. Did their death have anything to do with the Catholic Church's (or any other church's) policy? No. Has any Catholic ever used a condom in defiance of their church? Yes.

The list goes on and on... homophobia, misogyny, corporal punishment, child abuse, sectarian violence, and so on, all often undertaken "in the name of religion X".

Do you think if we get rid of religion we'll get rid of these problems? I don't think it will make a scrap of difference, myself. People cause these problems. That particular religions figured out that telling people what they want to hear keeps them coming back is just a matter of course.

The OP asked about God, not religion. But in practice the two are usually inseparable.

In other words, you find it likely that if a person believes in God, they probably are the cause of all these issues you listed?

 

[Sunstone]

Is there any point in debating the existence of God?

Bouncing ideas off other people can be a good way to see those ideas in a new light -- a light provided by the folks you bounce them off of.

 

[icehorse]

Hi Sir Doom,

I will be happy to defend my words

I have a strong issue with you thinking I ought to hide my faith from you. I'm not going to do anything behind closed doors in order to pander to your delicate sensibilities. I do, and will act as I believe. You will do the same. This is called equality.

Fair enough. I value evidence and logic over faith, which I'm not the first to define as "belief without evidence". Ultimately who's to say whether valuing evidence is better than valuing "faith"? Personally I think that modern secular society is human's best attempt yet - not without many flaws to be sure - but the best yet.

So of course you have every right to flaunt your beliefs, and in turn I can tease you about them.

Does this mean you don't care about non-religious beliefs that adversely affect society in general? I hardly think so. Which means religion is no different than anything else in this regard, Is it?

I never claimed that religion was our only source of problems. Just that it IS one of our major sources of problems.

First, you say 'to varying degrees'. Is it your position that all degrees of this behavior ought to be discouraged? And how, do you propose we perform said discouragement

Parenting issues should be mandated from... which authority? Appropriate age is... what age according to this authority?

Varying degrees: Briefly, I think it's important to distinguish between morality-and-ethics and dogma. Morality and ethics can be taught at an early age (and are to some degree innate). I find religion to be a poor vehicle with which to teach morality and ethics. You can find good moral teachings in religion, but you have to do a lot of cherry picking to sort the good from the bad.

As far as questions of authority go, it seems to me that the best authority ought to be the society's shared values. As you well know, these shared values provide authority to all manner of life situations. For example, in the U.S. we have laws to restrict child labor. And those laws supersede religious teachings.

Tell that to the Amish. They would likely describe it as moving forward. What makes you right and them wrong?

It could be that they Amish are correct, but as I said earlier, I'm happy to declare that I'm biased towards modern secular society. I say this not only for my own best interests but for the best interests of my daughters and for future generations. It might be interesting to start a thread on whether the Amish have the best plan, but that seems like a detour? I don't know.

Do you find it useless to debate the morality of any scientific endeavor? Do you think only religious people feel this way? Do the ends justify the means so long as the ends are 'scientific knowledge' ? I hardly think so. In any case, stem cell research has NOT been halted at all. So... you know... non-issue.

By no means should science get a free pass. But the very nature of science is that it is constantly under attack. Every scientific advance must pass through the gauntlet of peer review. Every good scientist is humble because of this. Most religious people however feel that their religious beliefs are beyond reproach. They are the opposite of humble in this regard.

As far as stem cell research goes, in the U.S. at least it has been slowed and restricted due to religious beliefs.

Wow. You're going to lay the blame of death by AIDS on the Catholic church? I'm sorry, but I'd be much more inclined to point to simple human ignorance and apathy. Has an atheist ever died from AIDS? Yes. Did their death have anything to do with the Catholic Church's (or any other church's) policy? No. Has any Catholic ever used a condom in defiance of their church? Yes.

Sir Doom - this could be a good debate, but you've a tendency to create strawman arguments. Of course I never made such absolute statements. Please let's avoid strawmen from now on? It just slows down otherwise interesting exchanges.

Your last comments are also strawmen...

__________________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"

 

[Sunstone]

Is there any point in debating the existence of God?

Debating theology can make some people go bonkers, which can be a pleasant distraction from the ennui of theology itself.

 

[Sir Doom]

Hi Sir Doom,

I will be happy to defend my words

Time will tell.

Fair enough. I value evidence and logic over faith, which I'm not the first to define as "belief without evidence". Ultimately who's to say whether valuing evidence is better than valuing "faith"? Personally I think that modern secular society is human's best attempt yet - not without many flaws to be sure - but the best yet.

So of course you have every right to flaunt your beliefs, and in turn I can tease you about them.

And by 'teasing' you mean keeping them 'in private' and 'behind closed doors' ? Or are you not actually defending those words, now?

I never claimed that religion was our only source of problems.

Which is why I said, "I hardly think so."

Just that it IS one of our major sources of problems.

No, that would be people. You seem to be thinking that religions tell people what to believe and they just believe it because they were told. While this may happen occasionally, I think its far more frequent that people believe what they believe and gravitate towards/believe in/seek out/interpret their religion to agree with them. Which is why it makes no difference at all what someone believes, but only how they act. Removing the religion will have no effect. Forcing it into the closet will only make their actions a surprise to the rest of us. Bad idea, if you ask me.

Varying degrees: Briefly, I think it's important to distinguish between morality-and-ethics and dogma.

A lot of people would agree with you. A lot of religious people. Oops. Maybe that brush you are using is a bit too broad...

Morality and ethics can be taught at an early age (and are to some degree innate). I find religion to be a poor vehicle with which to teach morality and ethics.
You can find good moral teachings in religion, but you have to do a lot of cherry picking to sort the good from the bad.

Interesting. Would you mind providing what you consider a non-poor vehicle for teaching morality and ethics?

As far as questions of authority go, it seems to me that the best authority ought to be the society's shared values.

Do you mean things like freedom of expression? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Things like that?

As you well know, these shared values provide authority to all manner of life situations. For example, in the U.S. we have laws to restrict child labor. And those laws supersede religious teachings.

Are you proposing a law, then?

It could be that they Amish are correct, but as I said earlier, I'm happy to declare that I'm biased towards modern secular society. I say this not only for my own best interests but for the best interests of my daughters and for future generations. It might be interesting to start a thread on whether the Amish have the best plan, but that seems like a detour? I don't know.

I think you are missing my point. We all live here together. I'm glad that you are proud of your bias towards modern secular society and I encourage you to live your life exactly as if that is the way it should be. I am in no way advocating some kind of oligarchy. But people have a right to their beliefs. And if those beliefs include restricting the progress of science, then they are well within their rights to do their best to make things as they like. Just like you and me. What you'll never catch me doing is telling them they have to keep it to themselves, which is exactly what I take away from your first statement.

By no means should science get a free pass. But the very nature of science is that it is constantly under attack. Every scientific advance must pass through the gauntlet of peer review. Every good scientist is humble because of this. Most religious people however feel that their religious beliefs are beyond reproach. They are the opposite of humble in this regard.

I see.

Good scientists are humble.
Most religious people are not humble.

So, if I am a conceited religious person who perceives a moral problem with any given scientific pursuit, I should keep that private and behind closed doors? Is this because I am religious or because I am not humble?

As far as stem cell research goes, in the U.S. at least it has been slowed and restricted due to religious beliefs.

And why is that wrong? How 'fast' or 'unrestricted' ought it to be and why?

Sir Doom - this could be a good debate, but you've a tendency to create strawman arguments. Of course I never made such absolute statements. Please let's avoid strawmen from now on? It just slows down otherwise interesting exchanges.

It isn't a strawman at all. Your statement:

d. Religious people often put their dogma before human well being. For example, the Catholic church's policies have boiled down the stance that "while AIDS is bad, condoms are worse". This attitude has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not millions of unnecessary deaths, and untold suffering.

You are clearly placing the blame on 'this attitude' which you attribute directly to the Catholic Church's policies. If you did not mean to place the blame on the church for supporting such an attitude, then what exactly did you mean?

Your last comments are also strawmen...

Only if you take them out of the context of the conversation.

The first one:

Do you think if we get rid of religion we'll get rid of these problems? I don't think it will make a scrap of difference, myself. People cause these problems. That particular religions figured out that telling people what they want to hear keeps them coming back is just a matter of course.

Here I am combining your statement about keeping religion private and behind closed doors with your reasoning for doing so (the list that goes on). That's hardly a strawman. That's your words. Defend them or not.

The second one:

In other words, you find it likely that if a person believes in God, they probably are the cause of all these issues you listed?

It is YOU who equates God and religion here. If that equation holds true, then what you say about religion here applies to belief in God, as well. That's not a strawman either. That's logic.

 

[icehorse]

Sir Doom,

No, I'm sure I'll be happy. Because if you can prove me wrong I'll be better for it.

As to the "behind closed doors" comment: Of course everyone has a right to express whatever they believe, I'm all for freedom of expression. But religious people *often* (please do not extrapolate this to *always*) want to publicly declare their faith, AND they want to shut down any criticism of their faith. We must be free to criticize religious speeches and religious beliefs. There can be no hint that blasphemy has any validity in society. Religious folks must not attempt to shut down our right to criticize their beliefs. Religious folks often try to invoke false claims that criticism of their faith equals hate speech. Since true hate speech is illegal in many parts of the world, such false claims are morally equivalent to attempting to curtail free speech.

So, share your faith all you want to, AND staunchly defend my right to honest, logical criticism, and we'll be just fine.

No, that would be people. You seem to be thinking that religions tell people what to believe and they just believe it because they were told. While this may happen occasionally, I think its far more frequent that people believe what they believe and gravitate towards/believe in/seek out/interpret their religion to agree with them. Which is why it makes no difference at all what someone believes, but only how they act. Removing the religion will have no effect. Forcing it into the closet will only make their actions a surprise to the rest of us. Bad idea, if you ask me.

I think I answered the "closet" question above so on to your next point.

Is it fair to conclude from your statement above that you think scripture has no influence on behavior? I'd agree that some people bend scripture to their own preconceived notions, but I'd say that far more people (especially if indoctrinated at a young age), have their beliefs initially shaped by religion.

I'll give one example (there are many): Countries with significant Islamic populations span from southern Africa to northern Africa to the ME, to southern Asia and all the way into SE Asia. The vast majority of the world's Muslims live in these regions. Many, many different cultures exist across these regions, and yet we find that certain behaviors - codified by Islam - are more prevalent in these countries than in non-Islamic countries. Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that such correlations are coincidence.

Interesting. Would you mind providing what you consider a non-poor vehicle for teaching morality and ethics?

Sir Doom, you're a bright young man. My guess is that if you put your mind to it, you could - in under five minutes - cook up a much better set of morals than the ten commandments.

How about replacing the "no graven images" edict with something like "never harm children"?

Do you mean things like freedom of expression? Freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Things like that?

I see what you're doing there

Yes of course, and of course I support freedom of religion. ButI also support freedom "from" religion. If my grandkids can't learn about evolution in school, then they're not free from religion. If burn victims are suffering because the religious are slowing down scientific research, then those burn victims are also not free from religion.

What you'll never catch me doing is telling them they have to keep it to themselves...

Back to the discussion above. Of course they can pursue those goals. AND, if they invoke religion they must defend my right to criticize their beliefs. How about let's never hear again that criticism of religion is "hate speech".

more strawmen...

And why is that (slowing down stem cell research), wrong? How 'fast' or 'unrestricted' ought it to be and why?

Well this is a philosophy question. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. In my philosophy, slowing down research that can reduce human suffering is immoral.

You are clearly placing the blame on 'this attitude' (concerning condoms), which you attribute directly to the Catholic Church's policies. If you did not mean to place the blame on the church for supporting such an attitude, then what exactly did you mean?

your earlier quote:

Wow. You're going to lay the blame of death by AIDS on the Catholic church? I'm sorry, but I'd be much more inclined to point to simple human ignorance and apathy. Has an atheist ever died from AIDS? Yes. Did their death have anything to do with the Catholic Church's (or any other church's) policy? No. Has any Catholic ever used a condom in defiance of their church? Yes.

Sir Doom, in my book this is a strawman argument. I never said that *every* AIDS death should be blamed on the church. I think you know very well that you deliberately mis-extrapolated my words.

And yes, I think in many cases the church's policies in this regard has led to many unnecessary deaths. In many cases the church offers aid only when condoms are withheld. Is this illegal, of course not. Is it immoral? I'd say so.

Sorry, more strawmen:

I never claimed any perfect solutions, another mis-extrapolation on your part.

I never claimed that believing in God causes all the issues I listed, yet another mis-extrapolation.

In my original list, IN EVERY CASE, I used the word "often".

Do I think religion causes all of these problems? Of course not, and I never said that. ButI do think that religion *often* exacerbates these problems, which is a statement completely consistent with my earlier list.

______________________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Is it not true that most people go to church because they want to be a better person regardless?

Yes, but the topic is about the existence of gods specifically. I have known quite a few church-going atheists in my day, so the idea that people go to church to learn how to be good from a god or gods doesn't quite mesh.

 

[Sir Doom]

Sir Doom,

No, I'm sure I'll be happy. Because if you can prove me wrong I'll be better for it.

Well, its not about proving you wrong necessarily. Its about giving you an impression of your words.

As to the "behind closed doors" comment: Of course everyone has a right to express whatever they believe, I'm all for freedom of expression. But religious people *often* (please do not extrapolate this to *always*) want to publicly declare their faith, AND they want to shut down any criticism of their faith. We must be free to criticize religious speeches and religious beliefs. There can be no hint that blasphemy has any validity in society. Religious folks must not attempt to shut down our right to criticize their beliefs. Religious folks often try to invoke false claims that criticism of their faith equals hate speech. Since true hate speech is illegal in many parts of the world, such false claims are morally equivalent to attempting to curtail free speech.

So, share your faith all you want to, AND staunchly defend my right to honest, logical criticism, and we'll be just fine.

I think I answered the "closet" question above so on to your next point.

In what weird way do you think the above resembles the below:

1 - I don't care what other people do in private, as long as it doesn't adversely affect society. If you want to have and practice religious faith behind closed doors, I have no issues.

Seriously, icehorse. What you are saying now is EXACTLY what criticism I have of your original comment. How does "behind closed doors" and "in private" reflect open criticism and freedom of religion? When I read your comment it sounds a lot more like, "As long as I don't have to see them, they are fine."

Is it fair to conclude from your statement above that you think scripture has no influence on behavior? I'd agree that some people bend scripture to their own preconceived notions, but I'd say that far more people (especially if indoctrinated at a young age), have their beliefs initially shaped by religion.

Control still rests with the individual. Those adhering to scripture are not ignorant of the consequences of their actions. They aren't being forced to do anything by reading a book at a young age. Religion is not in control. People are.

I'll give one example (there are many): Countries with significant Islamic populations span from southern Africa to northern Africa to the ME, to southern Asia and all the way into SE Asia. The vast majority of the world's Muslims live in these regions. Many, many different cultures exist across these regions, and yet we find that certain behaviors - codified by Islam - are more prevalent in these countries than in non-Islamic countries. Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that such correlations are coincidence.

Countries with a large Muslim population act as if they are large Muslim populations? Be still my beating heart. Of course its not a coincidence.

Sir Doom, you're a bright young man. My guess is that if you put your mind to it, you could - in under five minutes - cook up a much better set of morals than the ten commandments.

I'm sure I could, too. Luckily for the rest of you, I find morality far too important to spend anything less than my entire life on it.

How about replacing the "no graven images" edict with something like "never harm children"?

So, religion IS a good vehicle as long as it says what you want it to? Or, was this not an answer to my question?

I see what you're doing there

I'm sure you do. I wasn't trying to be subtle.

Yes of course, and of course I support freedom of religion. ButI also support freedom "from" religion. If my grandkids can't learn about evolution in school, then they're not free from religion. If burn victims are suffering because the religious are slowing down scientific research, then those burn victims are also not free from religion.

You live among religious people. Those people have as much say over how their government acts as you do. You are not free from that. Nor should you be.

Back to the discussion above. Of course they can pursue those goals. AND, if they invoke religion they must defend my right to criticize their beliefs. How about let's never hear again that criticism of religion is "hate speech".

Here, I definitely agree with you. No religious person has the right to tell you not to criticize them or their religion. I don't care if it IS hate speech. We all get to speak our mind. EDIT: Wanted to add that I don't think anything you are saying here is hate speech at all.

more strawmen...

Well this is a philosophy question. Nothing wrong with that I suppose. In my philosophy, slowing down research that can reduce human suffering is immoral.

I bet I could I break that opinion for you. What do you think about animal research? Now you have to combat a secular group that disagrees with you. Shall we apply the same 'rules' to animal rights activists as we do to religious activists? Oh... wait... we already do. See my point?

Sir Doom, in my book this is a strawman argument. I never said that *every* AIDS death should be blamed on the church. I think you know very well that you deliberately mis-extrapolated my words.

I didn't. You just took it wrong. What I meant was precisely this:

And yes, I think in many cases the church's policies in this regard has led to many unnecessary deaths.

We are tracking on this subject, I assure you.

In many cases the church offers aid only when condoms are withheld. Is this illegal, of course not. Is it immoral? I'd say so.

In every case, I do not offer aid regardless of condoms. Have I led to many unnecessary deaths, as well? Am I, as you say, immoral because of this? Am I more or less immoral than the Catholic Church considering they help some people and I don't help anyone? Or, because I am not basing this decision on my religious beliefs, am I off the hook?

Sorry, more strawmen:

I never claimed any perfect solutions, another mis-extrapolation on your part.

When did I ask for one?

I never claimed that believing in God causes all the issues I listed, yet another mis-extrapolation.

Then I don't understand why you compared them at the end. Just to make sure no one cried about you being off-topic?

In my original list, IN EVERY CASE, I used the word "often".

And in which response did I deviate from that?

Do I think religion causes all of these problems? Of course not, and I never said that. ButI do think that religion *often* exacerbates these problems, which is a statement completely consistent with my earlier list.

Actually, what you said was:

I never claimed that religion was our only source of problems. Just that it IS one of our major sources of problems.

Which was a response to this:

Does this mean you don't care about non-religious beliefs that adversely affect society in general? I hardly think so. Which means religion is no different than anything else in this regard, Is it?

Which was a response to this:

2 - I DO care how religious beliefs adversely affect society in general:

The point I was driving at is that you probably feel the same way about adverse affects to society REGARDLESS of their origin. Is that not the case?

 

[icehorse]

Sir Doom,

I'm cherry-picking only because it seems that in some of these points we're totally miscommunicating. If you want to reassemble any of the earlier points, I'll be happy to respond. So I'll pick up those points where it seems that at least we're disagreeing on the same point

Control still rests with the individual. Those adhering to scripture are not ignorant of the consequences of their actions. They aren't being forced to do anything by reading a book at a young age. Religion is not in control. People are.

For the sake of consistency, let's stick with stem cells. Many religious people are opposed to stem cell research because they believe that the cells being researched house a human soul. Where did this belief come from? Are these folks micro-biologists? This belief came from their religion. For the most part, these people did not independently decide to take a reasoned, logical approach to the topic of stem cells. Their clergy told them that this was wrong.

Sir Doom, I'd be happy if more people took the kind of responsibility for themselves that you are suggesting. And further, from your posts it seems that you take a lot of responsibility for your own actions - and good on ya'. Now, if your point is "people SHOULD take responsibility for their beliefs and the side-effects of their beliefs", well in that we'd be in total agreement. But my claim is that many religious folks don't. They don't have to think for themselves because they've got their rulebook, and it's all they need - just the one book.

Did you know that in the U.S. there are some 20-odd states that allow corporal punishment in school? And would it surprise you to know that these are mostly bible-belt states? Is this just coincidence or might these folks be swayed because the Bible tells them "spare the rod and spoil the child"?

In every case, I do not offer aid regardless of condoms. Have I led to many unnecessary deaths, as well? Am I, as you say, immoral because of this? Am I more or less immoral than the Catholic Church considering they help some people and I don't help anyone? Or, because I am not basing this decision on my religious beliefs, am I off the hook?

Interesting argument, but it's apples and oranges. Let's say that you decide to personally fly yourself and a plane full of supplies to an impoverished, AIDS stricken area. Once there, you cherry pick which folks to help based on your religious views. "This person deserves my help, this other person does not." Is this legal? Probably so. Is it moral? Not in my book. Now take it a step further... now let's say that you hold your help hostage based on dangerous coercion. You say "I'll give you supplies, but only if you stop taking your malaria pills, because I don't believe in malaria pills." This might actually be illegal (I don't know), but it's clearly immoral, I'd go so far as to say evil.

The point I was driving at is that you probably feel the same way about adverse affects to society REGARDLESS of their origin. Is that not the case?

Yes, society's problems have many sources, and many of them concern me. So what? What's wrong with tackling one issue at a time and making incremental progress? This thread is about debating the existence of God. You wanna start a separate thread on the problems of corporations that are too big to fail. Great topic, another huge societal problem, I'll meet you there.

________________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"

 

[Sir Doom]

Sir Doom,

I'm cherry-picking only because it seems that in some of these points we're totally miscommunicating. If you want to reassemble any of the earlier points, I'll be happy to respond. So I'll pick up those points where it seems that at least we're disagreeing on the same point

I think I can do you one better. My problem with your first post has everything to do with that first statement:

1 - I don't care what other people do in private, as long as it doesn't adversely affect society. If you want to have and practice religious faith behind closed doors, I have no issues.

What I realize is that I may have been placing a bit more weight into this comment than you intended. Using the ultimate power of brain-thinking (patent pending) I now realize that you really only mean this as a qualification for why you might debate the existence of God (or the voracity of any particular religion or religious view as the case may be).

I took your statement at face value. Its an all-too-common sentiment that religious people are somehow not allowed to make decisions that effect the rest of us based on their religion (which is nonsense, of course). This is something of a hot-button for me, as above all things I believe in freedom. So when I read this statement, I somehow forgot the context of the thread and imagined you were advocating something along those lines. I am now fairly certain you are not, and that you only wished to illustrate what compels you to debate the topic to begin with.

So, I must apologize because pretty much everything I've said so far has been colored by the incorrect assumption I made about that first part. It was really when I read the last part of your last post that the light bulb hit the fan and I realized how stupid I was being.

:namaste

 

[kashmir]

After I joined, I read a few threads and already wished to discuss this subject, I am glad it is a current topic.
Debating the existence of deities is completely pointless due to the brute fact that not a soul on this planet can offer a shred of empirical evidence of what happens when we expire.

The title asks why debate the existence and since it is pointless, the subject becomes debating doctrine instead.

What then ends up happening is ..
"we should suppress doctrine when it clashes with non believers ideas"

Doctrine is man made, if we are to suppress that, we suppress man.
So, no.
Non believers can not just pick an idea and use it to make a point to suppress docrtine when it clashes with their ideas, because all doctrine are not exclusive to the same ideas.
It seems non believers think it is though.
It is not "believers vrs non believers"
It is billions of men/women all clashing on ideas.
Why should non believers get to pick ideas that clash with them and suppress everyone else if they can label it doctrine ideas?
Doctrine ideas is mans ideas to begin with, so in then end, this becomes a human rights issue, because, doctrine is mans ideas anyway.

Non believers are starting groups now, so when believers ideas clash with their ideas, should all non believers be suppressed?
So again, no

I will give a huge example of my idea, that may also be doctrines ideas, but it is not my idea because it is doctrines idea.
I believe premarital sex should be illegal, because STD's that are spread affect me too, we would not have that huge issue if even the majority of people not have multiple sex partners.
Abortion is out of hand, teen pregnancy, welfare, unwed babies that end up being given up for adaption and end up abused and so forth.
The rate we are growing, eventually something will be done unless war kills off billions, maybe that wont be for a long time, but it is coming.
I feel I am right, and it is not doctrine talking, it is me talking.
I also an not hiding behind doctrine either to discuss it.

 

[icehorse]

Sir Doom,

And I agree that that first statement of mine (the closet statement), was poorly phrased - thanks!

kashmir -

Do you think that some ideas are beyond debate? If you propose an idea that I think is ridiculous, do you defend my right to laugh at your idea?

_____________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"

 

[kashmir]

kashmir -

Do you think that some ideas are beyond debate? If you propose an idea that I think is ridiculous, do you defend my right to laugh at your idea?

of course, freedom of speech is not a free ride to bring ridiculous ideas into law.
"laugh at" is a poor choice of words though.
Intellectual discussion makes more sense then "laugh at" correct?

Are you suggesting my previous post to be laughable?
Just so we are on the same page.

 

[icehorse]

kashmir,

I have no problem with your post, I was just responding. As you know, drawing cartoons of Islam's prophet has caused a lot of trouble in the very recent past. Writing novels about Islam's prophet has caused lots of trouble in the very recent past.

I'd say that sometimes "laugh at" is the best response. If were to tell you that I think the moon is made out of cheese, you might well laugh at me.

This is important. One person MUST have the right to laugh at another person's ideas. Full stop, no exceptions. You're correct, it might not always be the most productive thing to do. But people MUST be allowed to do it. If I find a piece of cherished scripture to be ridiculous, you must defend my right to say so, even if you cherish that scripture.

What do you think?

______________
"without love in the game, insanity's king"