The most epic religion debate to end all religion debates
No matter how many theism/atheism, Christianity/Anti-christianity debates we have, it seems we won't ever resolve anything. No matter how much we debate this, there seems to be no progress. It seems to me that it would be nice to have a final debate, a debate that would end the need for more debates on the matter.
This isn't that debate. Rather this is a perspective debate about how you think a such a debate should be. How could we go about having a final debate about religion?
|
3
points
Well basically both sides are just trying to argue that their opinion is better. Neither knows that what they are saying is a fact which is why the arguing continues. For it to end someone would have to prove the existence of a God or obtain some information that completely disproves that a God created us. No one has successfully done this. Now looking at these facts the only other way to end it is for both sides to realize that they DO NOT KNOW. Killing most of the "heretics" will not end it either. Their will always be believers and non believers. Let us all find facts that we both know and go from there. To say "WE DON'T KNOW" is a cop out, it's a way for any human, or agnostics, to say "We know nothing", but in the end, giving an opinion is still something, is it not? Acknowledging this fact is still something, therefore, there are still realites to consider. The point is, I'm an advocate for the production and progress of "What do we know?", from both sides, and go from there. Surely, believers do establish facts and common ground, just as non-believers establish their common ground; let both sides really consider the situation and circumstances at hand; I guarantee there will be common ground and THAT is precisely the golden area. the only other way to end it is for both sides to realize that they DO NOT KNOW. I think this is a very good point, and I agree with you that no body truly knows anything about these matters (ignoring the discussion about whether atheism is an actual belief system or not). But the catch is that some people will insist that they do know, and as far as I can tell there is simply no way of dealing with that. 1
point
But the catch is that some people will insist that they do know Which is what really annoys me about most of society. They hear or see idea presented by someone or something and they almost instantaneously believe...or refuse to believe it with out looking further into it or realizing that it may be a possibility. But this can't really be helped since it has a lot to do with how their brains are wired at birth. critical thinking abilities, imagination, processing concepts with logic, etc. Psychological development is still their, but it's how their brains are wired that lead to the final outcome. If only there was a way to fully harness all of the amazing aspects of the brain. :) 2
points
The way we are debating right now, I don't see any realistic chance of resolving the differences. I like progress, so in my opinion, it would be nice to have an idea why things are moving so slow in these debates (if they are moving at all), and hopefully, if we can figure that out, we can see where we ought place our time.
It's not because I dislike debating, or dislike debating religion in particular, it's just that I don't like putting effort into changing a situation that appears to be unchangable. That's why I think it's a problem. It really does look like we are spending energy on an impossible challenge, so what I am trying to figure out is how we could, theoretically anyway, achieve something with these debates. I think what's important for both sides is to find common ground and go from there. It is obvious what it not common ground and indifferences are what establish the counter productivity, regardless of what any person says on the subject. And so, I agree at least in that for progress to be made, I believe the first step is not only understanding, but "common ground", and from there, amazing things are awaiting for both sides. 1
point
It's it about resolving differences, it's about the arguing. It's about winning over the other, not settling for agreement in the middle. That's the point of debate. The arguing is the fun, if we settled it then what's the point? Sure debate quality has declined but what can you do? It's a slow time of year. And I think we should hold off on religious debates for a while that way everyone isn't sick of them and we can have a good debate. I think any real chance at having religious debates that are fruitful needs to begin with the participants realizing that religion is something everyone practices in their own somewhat unique way. We need to stop arguing against stereotypes and respect each individual's belief/value system on a case by case basis. We need to have a deep understanding of our ideological commonalities before we can effectively address our differences. We need to begin our dialogs from a place of agreement, and move forward, rather than trying to work backward from a place of disagreement. I've often thought, what is the point in debating with someone if the only real difference we have is taste in metaphor. As one who somewhat reluctantly identifies as atheist, I can tell you that a big reason why I am not comfortable with the label, is because of the stereotypes associated with it. But I suppose it's my responsibility to demonstrate that there are atheists who don't look down their noses at theists with the presumption that anyone who takes the theist position does so out of ignorance or stupidity. I suppose it's my responsibility to demonstrate that the stereotype that atheists are just metaphorically challenged isn't entirely accurate. I can recognize that one may not think of themselves as having any sort of theology, but I also understand that everyone has a ruling logic, articulate or not. Oh, and last but not least, we have to focus on discussing principles before personalities. In my experience, the best way to derail a deepening dialog is to subtly or blatantly deliver an insulting ad-hominem argument. I think it should be discussed whether progress is possible at all. If the consensus is that there can be made progress, then we should figure out how such progress could be made effectively, and then go in that direction. If the consensus is that progress is impossible, then it should be obvious that there is no reason to continue. Isn't it obvious that there are grounds for finding common grounds? I think so. I know so. I wouldn't even believe, nor have faith, if I didn't think so. I know that both sides can at least find common ground. This is at least the key for both sides understanding each other. We're all human, in the end. I like the idea of trying to find common ground. In fact it's long been an ideal for me that we need to fully understand what we are arguing against, before we start arguing. I think it's much more fruitful to find the common ground and then go from there, but it really seems like it can't be done in this particular topic. Correct me if I am wrong, but it's sort of apparent that theists and atheists differ on fundamental epistemological grounds. Atheists will insist that a skeptical approach to knowledge is required. Theists will cling on to faith and try to justify it, but they will always argue from a basis of contention that God is real. It's thus implicit in the theistic belief that God is inherently justified until proven wrong. Atheists want theists to prove their belief, while theists want atheists to disprove theism. There's a lot of confusion going on here. Doesn't this mean that either atheists have to gain theistic faith or theists to loose their faith in order to for some common ground to be reached? How is it ever possible to reach any conclusion if our fundamental attitudes towards knowledge differ? 1
point
1
point
There really is no debate. God is either impossible or necessary. Everything is possible until proven impossible. Atheists have yet to prove that God is impossible. Hence, until atheists prove God to be impossible, God shall be viewed as real. The debate should, therefore, only focus on whether God is possible or not. That is the only question. The debate should, therefore, only focus on whether God is possible or not. That is the only question. I think that's very true, but isn't that what we have tried for a long time already? Atheists tend to attack the idea of some specific kinds of Gods, like omnipotent Gods, and theists try to defend it, but there hasn't really been substantial progress. It appears to me that no matter how you attack the idea of a God, there is always a way to escape it. If I am right there is only one rational option here. We simply shouldn't debate whether God is possible, because if we continue, it will never amount to anything. I might be wrong though, and if so we need to figure out how to arrive at infallible arguments for or against the concept of God... Hopefully we can't arrive at infallible arguments for and against God since that too would leave us nowhere. 1
point
You're right. This debate will hopefully help us all find common ground. Because, as we all know deep down, there is in fact common ground. Step one: We're all human. Step two: Humans are curious....it's up to us to find the rest of the common denominators. They are there, I know it; we all know it. |
