Should the religious debate section only be for religious people?
Side Score: 25
Side Score: 47
I didn't think I would have to, but if you insist:
Obviously on the topic of religion is very personal, and therefore people tend to get upset when they encounter dissenting viewpoints. Obviously by definition atheists and other non-religious people have a different perspective on the issue. Does this mean their opinions are still not valid? Does this mean that they can't participate to a healthy discussion of the subject?
I would argue that non-religious people may actually have a better perspective on certain religious debates because of their objectivity. The only issue with whether non-religious people know what their talking about. If for example they came from a religious family or have studied certain religions, then they would be qualified. On the other hand, if they were merely born and raised without religion, then perhaps their knowledge may be lacking.
Having said this, however, religious people obviously have something to add to the conversation. Despite the fact that they have "chosen their side", they can obviously still make valid arguments regarding their own, or other religions (assuming they have knowledge).
You may have been looking for a short answer, and if that's the case I'm sorry...my answer would be no, we should not limit religious strictly to religious people.
Most of the debates tend to be about evolution or the existence of god. And most of those debates are created and dominated by non believers and all have almost the same outcome. That is freaking pointless. What is anyone gaining from that?
There's even less point of a debate where everyone is agreeing.
But the consistancy with which the non-believers emerge victorious in the religion debates should have a point.
It should tell people on the other side that they need to either re-evaluate the basis of their beliefs, or come up with a better defense than,
the Bible says,
it makes me feel good,
I just know because I know,
All of which are not only poor arguements, but incredibly easy and entertaining to debunk in endlessly creative ways.
I'll make a deal J, point me to the next religion arguement, and I'll play the devil's (or god's I guess) advocate, and see if there may be better arguements than the 3 stated above.
"But the consistency with which the non-believers emerge victorious in the religion debates should have a point."
It tells people on the other side that they are the minority and that they are being bullied, thats all.
"There's even less point of a debate where everyone is agreeing."
I agree, but are you saying that two religious people will always agree because they are both religious? Yeah thats what you were saying.
"it makes me feel good............entertaining to debunk"
So your saying that arguing against the argument of "it makes me feel good", makes you feel good. wow
Bullied? Oh your God, please. How do you get bullied in a internet debate, of all things?
You mean outnumbered? Overwhelmed?
Sorry if the denizens of the internet don't break down along the homogenized lines you're used to seeing in your "real" life, but that's just how it is.
Absolutely NOT! As a religious person do you not wish to debate what you believe in? If all we ever did was allow people who are in agreement with one another to debate a subject this would no longer be a debate site.
Even if you succeeded in making the religious debate section only for religious people all you'd be arguing about is whose religious beliefs are best. A debate is meant put a subject out there and defend your knowledge of that subject against another's beliefs.
No that is ridiculous how can we judge ourselves without an outside view? A view that is opposite ours is needed to give us a true negative outlook. What kind of debate is ' does God exist? ' if the only people ' allowed ' in that debate are people that believe that God exists ?
i agree jsut because their is a section for religion that does not mean people who are not religious do not have a opinion about things. The world today has many things tied into religion even most the president's speech consisted in religious refrences. If our president can address on religion why would the non religious not have the right to say anything about it while the religous gets the freedom of speech?
To cordon off parts of the site for "religious people" or "scientists" would defeat the purpose of the site. The whole point of debate is to discuss the merits of various points of view with the purpose of demonstrating that one's point of view is superior.
And yet debating religion with an atheist, especially one who has concluded through logic that a divine being does not in fact exist, is fundamentally absurd. The "faithful" accept the existence of God without reservation and without proof, thus they have faith. Because of this one cannot possibly prove that God exists and therefore cannot construct a logical or rational argument to that effect. This does not mean that one's belief is necessarily wrong (though the possibility must be acknowledged), merely that it is not a result of any logical conclusion and cannot be proven. Meaning that debating religion with an atheist is, pointless. The believer cannot create an argument that is convincing because he (or she) cannot provide proof; likewise the atheist cannot construct an argument that will be accepted because the believer has already made a conclusion that is completely illogical.
Which is why I've sworn off religious debates. It's a waste of everyone's time.