I'm just going to throw this out there... Call me crazy, or correct me, but...
It just seems like when it comes to controversial issues that could possibly conflict with certain religious views, all religious arguments are immediately classified as false, untrue, mumbo-jumbo.
Is it not okay to express your own personal beliefs about a certain issue based on what your religion says without being shunned and regarded as a closed minded fool?
Is it not okay to use the bible, the torah, the Koran, or any other religious book as your argument?
Most people as it seems on these forums would argue that you are not allowed to argue with those things because not all people believe in the same religion.
But couldn't I just as easily debunk all of your arguments because I don't believe in the same things you do?
I suppose the point I really want to get down to is why religion seems to be so widely unaccepted on these forums?
I think that you could get just as much enjoyment out of an argument if you are religious as you can if you're an atheist, if you're careful.
To be taken seriously in an argument, you have to make valid points. It just seems that many religious people tend to retreat behind their holy book when they're losing an argument, and that is an easy way to be called an idiot.
Don't know about Aethiests, but I do know about atheists. I'm a very conservative Christian, and I don't find debate here overwhelming. If anything, the atmosphere here is great! Sure, there are some people on both ends of the spectrum that don't know what they're talking about, but there are quite a few here that think about what they and others say. Debate is not necessarily to convince someone of your opinion; here it rarely fulfills that goal. For me the thrill of debate is pitting your own intellect and knowledge against that of others, teaching others new things and learning new things from others. That is what has set AG apart from 99% of the rest of the Internet.
I do respect your religion Kirby, and its teachings. In fact the world would be a better place if we all understood Jesus's message; but most people(including myself) want logical explanation for things that can be tested and proven. Since God has not proven he exists, or any else can prove that he exists, it is safe to assume that there is no god. With every belief (including Atheism) there are always radicals. The people who interrupt a debate with some completely bias statement that disrespects the opposite party is a radical. This radicals also disrespects there party in which they are in because it makes the entire party look bad. So I too feel frustrated when some Christian posts"all of u guys r goin 2 hel GOD IS REAl" or when some Atheist interrupts by saying"God doesn't exists man" or "your religion is messed up man"
I think agnostics have more fun. Atheists spend most of their time yelling :P
lqtm!
Anyway you dont have to be an atheist or anything you just have to know what your saying. I for one give a Christian or theist's option less merit than an atheist's (im really trying to not be like that though). But I think as long as you know what your saying and its not a religious debate your religion shouldnt matter.
In the end there is no god proof-wise, or evidence wise, therefore there is hardly a god... They're just doomsayers of the afterlife, it's annoying undercover -.-
These discussions typically rely on reasoning... If Christians inject religious material in as support, atheists don't consider it to be reason. If it's a topic focusing around ethics, religion is fine as a base for your answer; if it's a topic about something like economics, the whole biblical allusions are just dismissed as nuttiness.
"Nuttiness"... that's a fun word.
In a logic-based mathematical proof, you can't put "because god loves you" as support for a step. I think most people want that to apply to logic-based debates as well.
Being open-minded means you accept the possibility for something to exist without proof or evidence. . . . Which you don't, according to yourself.
True. But without proof or evidence, when we think in terms of probability, the probability of that postulate or suggestion or idea, becomes very unlikely until there is something more to bring to the table. Being open minded does not necessarily mean accepting everything.
My point being, that it is only the possibility that you are accepting, which is not a big leap.
True, though I accept the absolute correctness of something if it is proven, and then am not willing to accept the possibility of incorrectness. That's just common sense.
Being open-minded means you accept the possibility for something to exist without proof or evidence. . . . Which you don't, according to yourself.
Alt, this is going to be one of the very few times I disagree with you, but I have to say that's not necessarily open-mindedness, even if you are probably right as usual. From what I'm reading, that's more like blind faith, while open-mindedness would be more like willing to accept both sides of an issue. I guess with you using the word possibility it's correct, but often times accepting something without proof isn't connected to open-mindedness, but more to wanting to believe in something.
@mike: The possibility is key. I don't accept stuff as truth without it being proven- but I accept that it's possible. I basically mean that I do accept both sides of the issue- I accept that there is a possibility that each side is right or wrong. It's not really 'accepting' something if you simply consider it possible, is it now?
