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 feel that perhaps I'm joining this thread a little late and I will admit that I only read like the first 3 pages and most of the last one, so if I repeat any points already made I apologize in advance. I don't think that you have to be an atheist to enjoy debate here. It helps alot to be able to back up points with something other than "because religion said so". The fact is that an atheist will deny truth in any arguement presented without scientific, historical, or witness based backing that can be varified by multiple relible sources. Those of particularly strong religious belief may feel that they are attacked more than atheists but I think that perhaps this is because some see thier religion as proof enough in some cases and they can't back up their positions with anything but belief.
The fact is that an atheist will deny truth in any arguement presented without scientific, historical, or witness based backing that can be varified by multiple relible sources
Epicness. Right there. EPIC!
Atheists enjoy debates more than religous people because they win more. The religous people have nothing to back up their opinion besides belief, while Atheists have solid evidence.
I'd like to see an Atheist support the Big Bang theory which i believe is complete crap. Now im not an Athiest at all and i dont see how anyone could be because its obvious someone higher up is out there and i hope you all can come to peace with that one day. By the way dont yell at me because i believe in more then i can see lol
The religous people have nothing to back up their opinion besides belief, while Atheists have solid evidence.
Um, I don't find that to be true in most cases. I see some people that just say things like "God said so," but more often than not, the religious people have realized that they need to back up their opinion with things we all can agree on. While atheists tend to have solid evidence more than those with religious beliefs, I don't find that to be true in all cases. I find atheists that will quote an entire paragraph and then respond by saying "NO!"
You have to be a good debater or a good loser to enjoy debate on armorgames. Religion doesn't matter unless you get it involved.
I'd like to see an Atheist support the Big Bang theory which i believe is complete crap.
Well I'm not an atheist in the stricts sense but it's fact that there is tons of research regarding the Big Bang Thoery and other scientifically based Universe origin theories. They are theories though, which means people are still working to prove them true or false. It's also true that there are massive amounts of archiological (so spelled that wrong), historical, and scientific research being done to varify and clarify events recorded in religious texts such as the Bible and to attempt to prove the existance of (as notataco put it) "someone higher up". All that reseach essentailly makes religions unproven theories.
All that reseach essentailly makes religions unproven theories.
This brings up a point I'd like to make. Religious people might seem insane for accepting these religious theories as truth, but if you think about it, the only reason that is is because we can't wait around for proof that may never come in our lifetime. Other beliefs like the Big Bang aren't really life-changing, so one can sound more intelligent by saying that they accept the possibility that it is false. There's nothing to really gain or lose for the average Big Bangist.
Religious people might seem insane for accepting these religious theories as truth, but if you think about it, the only reason that is is because we can't wait around for proof that may never come in our lifetime.
Actually I don't think it's insane at all. When you find something in religion that sparks faith in you it's only logical to accept it as truth.
I'd like to see an Atheist support the Big Bang theory which i believe is complete crap. Now im not an Athiest at all and i dont see how anyone could be because its obvious someone higher up is out there and i hope you all can come to peace with that one day. By the way dont yell at me because i believe in more then i can see lol
So, since you don't believe in one theory all of a sudden God has to exist? How is it "Obvious" that someone "higher up" is out there? Don't say that its too complex for anything other than a higher being, because that's just a failure to understand the simple concepts behind things that combine with others and form more complex things. Its not just about what you can't see. Its what you can't prove, without using religious evidence, its what you can't hear, without people claiming they've talked to God (which, I think anyone with an ounce of sense wouldn't believe) something you can't perceive with any senses, and something that has absolutely no backing in facts. Hell, Christians believe in talking snakes and two people creating the entire population of Earth in a few thousand years, which unless they picked up some tips from Rabbits isn't going to happen
Atheists enjoy debates more than religous people because they win more. The religous people have nothing to back up their opinion besides belief, while Atheists have solid evidence.
You obviously haven't tried a debate. I suppose you have solid evidence to back your generalizations?
It's just common sense. For example, it is 100% correct that I posted this. And which things. . .the list is too long. Not everything (i.e the existence of God) can be, but many things can.
Is it 100% correct? How do you know I'm actually posting this? Am I a construct of your mind, or am I as real as you are, or you think you are? Can you prove your own existence?
You don't have to be religious to believe in god. And I would like too see an atheist disprove the existence of god without a reason of a doubt.
Right, because it's up to atheists to disprove wild claims for which there's no tangible evidence. I'd like to see someone prove the existence of god with something more then faith. Good luck.
Is it 100% correct? How do you know I'm actually posting this? Am I a construct of your mind, or am I as real as you are, or you think you are? Can you prove your own existence?
If you are just a construct of his mind, its still 100% correct based upon his reality. To another person it is not 100% right, but within the available parameters of judgment, yes, it did happen. We base existence upon what we can perceive, the whole "I think therefor I am" argument, and in a sense, we must exist. Even if we don't exist to in the view of everyone, we still exist, because we have the capability of thought and feeling. So, even if you are a tiny part of Alts mind, he's still 100% right in saying that he posted that. Even if its just a flashing thought, it existed, so as long as we are aware of our surroundings, whatever we may be in perspective to someone else, we exist.
[quote]Atheists enjoy debates more than religous people because they win more. The religous people have nothing to back up their opinion besides belief, while Atheists have solid evidence.
You obviously haven't tried a debate. I suppose you have solid evidence to back your generalizations?[/quote] In a true debate people are allowed to back up their opinion in any way they choose. The idea is to present the case in a manor that will sway the opinions of those observing the debate. Facts and figures are of infinite value but even they can fail when not put forward in a way that appeals to the masses. Religious values can be an incredibly powerful force in debate but one has to consider the widespread variation of religious practices and be aware that not everyone will be reseptive to that sort of strategy.
If you are just a construct of his mind, its still 100% correct based upon his reality. To another person it is not 100% right, but within the available parameters of judgment, yes, it did happen. We base existence upon what we can perceive, the whole "I think therefor I am" argument, and in a sense, we must exist. Even if we don't exist to in the view of everyone, we still exist, because we have the capability of thought and feeling. So, even if you are a tiny part of Alts mind, he's still 100% right in saying that he posted that. Even if its just a flashing thought, it existed, so as long as we are aware of our surroundings, whatever we may be in perspective to someone else, we exist.
'based upon his reality'. So, if it wasn't based upon his reality, then it wouldn't be 100% correct..?
As for our personal thought & I think there for I am - yes, you can use that to determine your own existence, but it's not quite enough to constitute 'reality' for others. How do you explain people who are delusional, or suffering from schizophrenia? Collectively, other people recognize that there can be mental incapacity to perceive 'reality' in the same way that we see, hear, taste & feel it. Are they 100% correct in their perceptions, or does reality exist in a manner that they are incapable of preceiving properly, and such, any conclusions that they come to with regards to that reality are, in fact, flawed.
he's still 100% right in saying that he posted that.
But by your logic, only to him, and no one else. We're straying from my original point. Throwing yourself in the middle of an argument until one side of the argument is 100% correct will leave you always in the middle - there may be no such thing as a true 'absolute', and making your terms that you will believe on side or the other if they are proved 100% correct, is an impossible qualification to meet, and as such, unreasonable.
