Religious discussion.

[Codeusa]

This is a debate I had with a few members from this forum, it is very long & I tried to keep it as civil as possible, but the intro to the video will tell you more.

Only the registered members can see the link.

if you watch it all let me know what you think, leave you opinions.

[lol]

very cool

[Fly]

It's a religious discussion but it says "Debating Christians"? lol.

[Owner of PkHonor]

Rofl I said the same thing as fly.

[corey2131]

lol pretty cool

[Slik]

You claim that religion causes poverty, and you later refer to Somalia which is an Islamic based country. The vast majority of Somalia is in fact muslims, now if the people you were debating had minimal knowledge about the subject they would know that one of the 5 pillars of Islam is Zakat which is giving 2.5% of your unspent money (savings) to charities, the poor and the needy. Islam, the religion of Somalia clearly doesn't support poverty so that point you made could backfire.

There are also things that you could/should have highlighted when making your arguements such as when discussing Noah's ark, you didin't discuss the lifespan of animals, the male winged ant lives for only a few weeks, flys for less.

The audio cut out for about 20 minutes so I missed quiet a large bit of your arguements and theirs.

Overall I would have to say that both of you made mistakes when debating and it wasn't the best discussing on the topic I have heard. If you are wondering what I thought you made mistakes on, you talked about how god couldn't be eternal because someone or something had to of created him, then you later discussed energy. When they mentioned the creation of energy, you were stumped and started to 'attack' religions by saying "atleast science is trying to find the answer", religion is trying to explain the answer. What you should have done was when they questioned energy, you should have explained how we can see the effects of energy in person and we can measure the presence of energy while we cannot measure the presence of god. We can measure the effect of energy, while there is no known way to measure the effect of god. Then continue with your arguement that if energy is the source of life, better energy than a fictional god because there is evidence of existance, which means we can continue to study and hopefully one day understand our roots.

There is very obvious weaknesses with the people you are debating against, debate against someone more knowledgable about the subject and test the effectiveness of your cases because I found flaws.

Also there is already a religion thread, you could have just posted this there.

[Codeusa]

You claim that religion causes poverty, and you later refer to Somalia which is an Islamic based country. The vast majority of Somalia is in fact muslims, now if the people you were debating had minimal knowledge about the subject they would know that one of the 5 pillars of Islam is Zakat which is giving 2.5% of your unspent money (savings) to charities, the poor and the needy. Islam, the religion of Somalia clearly doesn't support poverty so that point you made could backfire.

There are also things that you could/should have highlighted when making your arguements such as when discussing Noah's ark, you didin't discuss the lifespan of animals, the male winged ant lives for only a few weeks, flys for less.

The audio cut out for about 20 minutes so I missed quiet a large bit of your arguements and theirs.

Overall I would have to say that both of you made mistakes when debating and it wasn't the best discussing on the topic I have heard. If you are wondering what I thought you made mistakes on, you talked about how god couldn't be eternal because someone or something had to of created him, then you later discussed energy. When they mentioned the creation of energy, you were stumped and started to 'attack' religions by saying "atleast science is trying to find the answer", religion is trying to explain the answer. What you should have done was when they questioned energy, you should have explained how we can see the effects of energy in person and we can measure the presence of energy while we cannot measure the presence of god. We can measure the effect of energy, while there is no known way to measure the effect of god. Then continue with your arguement that if energy is the source of life, better energy than a fictional god because there is evidence of existance, which means we can continue to study and hopefully one day understand our roots.

There is very obvious weaknesses with the people you are debating against, debate against someone more knowledgable about the subject and test the effectiveness of your cases because I found flaws.

Also there is already a religion thread, you could have just posted this there.

If you knew anything about Somalia and stopped pulling your arguments from Wikipedia you'd know it is 0% Atheist, just as many other country's in its situation are, religion being the the majority over everyone. Where Religion is in power you tend to see more problems, Iran would be your prime example.

More things you tend to see:
Lower income rates
Lower IQ"s
Poverty rates increased.
Divorce rates increase
Pregnancy increased
Abortions would increase
STD's increase
Homicide increase

Oh if you want more examples
Somalia
Tanzania
Yemen
Western Sahara
Philippines
Romania
Pakistan
Cambodia
Atheist are all under 1% in these country's. Supporting my claim that when you don't have Atheist helping out you tend to get problems.

Anything else mr?

There are also things that you could/should have highlighted when making your arguements such as when discussing Noah's ark, you didin't discuss the lifespan of animals, the male winged ant lives for only a few weeks, flys for less.
Your point being? You ignored all other facts that I stated. Those alone are enough to debunk it.

Also I wasn't "stumped" when they brought up energy, I agreed it can not be created nor destroyed, it either got cut or you failed to listen as I stated that energy can exist forever as it renews its self & is always in front of you, you can feel it, you can see it working everyday. I never stated if God was eternal or not, I simply said "Because science cannot explain it, does not mean a God of any sorts did it. That's why your god is the god of the gaps" Religion is not trying to find the answers, they have a book written by man & they're going here is your answer, what proof do they have to support it? none. Then you have Science which looks for the answers, find evidence to support them, test them for years & if they work, it gets published there is your answer, if it doesn't they try again with a new hypothesis. Religion is not exempt from the Scientific method.

I think maybe you should either
A: Listen better next time
B: if audio is missing ask first.




It's a religious discussion but it says "Debating Christians"? lol.


Sorry allow me to tend to your every need and change it to debating "Theist"


Only the registered members can see the link.

This is my problem with Religion.

[Owner of PkHonor]

I just love reading slik's arguments.

[Relapse]

If you knew anything about Somalia and stopped pulling your arguments from Wikipedia you'd know it is 0% Atheist, just as many other country's in its situation are, religion being the the majority over everyone. Where Religion is in power you tend to see more problems, Iran would be your prime example.

If you didn't pull your arguments in your debate out of your ass your debate would make a lot more sense.

And tbh I can't even listen to it anymore I got like 20 mins into it and realized that both parties went into the debate "knowing" that they were right.... What I listened too was a straight argument not a debate by any means.









Also I wasn't "stumped" when they brought up energy, I agreed it can not be created nor destroyed, it either got cut or you failed to listen as I stated that energy can exist forever as it renews its self & is always in front of you, you can feel it, you can see it working everyday. I never stated if God was eternal or not, I simply said "Because science cannot explain it, does not mean a God of any sorts did it. That's why your god is the god of the gaps" Religion is not trying to find the answers, they have a book written by man & they're going here is your answer, what proof do they have to support it? none. Then you have Science which looks for the answers, find evidence to support them, test them for years & if they work, it gets published there is your answer, if it doesn't they try again with a new hypothesis. Religion is not exempt from the Scientific method.



Religion is not trying to find the answers because they believe that they know them. I also don't get how in the same thought you could say two different ideas Religion is not trying to find the answers, they have a book written by man, which makes no sense at all to me given the context that it is in.
Because to me thats like saying Science because it was written by man is false. Because God didn't take the time to write it its false.

Do you know how many ideas made by scientists that at the time it was found and was considered correct are dis-proven as time goes on. Just because its published doesn't mean its right.

You many find many things that the bible cannot explain. But I can guarantee that there are just as many that science itself can do no better at.

PS. Your reasons aren't really put forth in the easiest way to read which makes it really hard to understand what you are saying.

[Dean]

If you knew anything about Somalia and stopped pulling your arguments from Wikipedia you'd know it is 0% Atheist, just as many other country's in its situation are, religion being the the majority over everyone. Where Religion is in power you tend to see more problems, Iran would be your prime example.

More things you tend to see:
Lower income rates
Lower IQ"s
Poverty rates increased.
Divorce rates increase
Pregnancy increased
Abortions would increase
STD's increase
Homicide increase

Oh if you want more examples
Somalia
Tanzania
Yemen
Western Sahara
Philippines
Romania
Pakistan
Cambodia.

I would like to see your source of where you get this kind of information, I can't find anything you're talking about on the internet.

[Slik]

If you knew anything about Somalia and stopped pulling your arguments from Wikipedia you'd know it is 0% Atheist, just as many other country's in its situation are, religion being the the majority over everyone. Where Religion is in power you tend to see more problems, Iran would be your prime example.

More things you tend to see:
Lower income rates
Lower IQ"s
Poverty rates increased.
Divorce rates increase
Pregnancy increased
Abortions would increase
STD's increase
Homicide increase


Please, do feel free to show me where I pulled my arguments from, wikipedia was it? Since you are discussing Somalia and Iran here I'll be discussing Islam instead of religions as a whole. Islam doesn't support abortions it frowns upon them, while some argue it is allowed in certain situations the fact of the matter stands that Islam promotes life, abortion would go against this. The only time Islam deems abortion acceptable is when the mother's life is in real danger. Now you can interprete the Qu'ran in many different ways and argue that abortion is accepted before 120 days, or 7 weeks etc, a religion promoting life and a religion that considers life to be sacred would consider preventing life bad (haram).

Both wudu (washing before prayer) and tahara (circumcision) promote cleanliness. Islam promotes clean sex in order to prevent infections. Islam also doesn't promote homicide or divorce so what aspects of religions actually contribute to what you've mentioned? If you suggest that not everyone follows religions to the letter, why bother making the point? If you suggest that ignorance to scientific information that may be beneficial to them is the reason, that doesn't mean religions is the fault of it.

The fact of the matter is that those countries are developing countries meaning a vast majority of people are ignorant to many things, this doesn't mean that they are ignorant because of religions. I'll presume you'll argue that religions ignore science and as a result are ignorant to things that may help them, but who says you cannot believe in both science and religion. The sole reason for the conditions people are living in those countries is not because of religion, it is because of lack of education.

Most atheist are well educated, a lot of religious people are not educated. This doesn't mean that religion causes these problems, it means that education helps prevent these problems.



Your point being? You ignored all other facts that I stated. Those alone are enough to debunk it.


I didn't ignore the other facts, I said "there are also things...". Note the also, I aknowledged your points and they are valid and good points. I was meerly stating that when you made your arguements you could have added more making them more solid.



Also I wasn't "stumped" when they brought up energy, I agreed it can not be created nor destroyed, it either got cut or you failed to listen as I stated that energy can exist forever as it renews its self & is always in front of you, you can feel it, you can see it working everyday. I never stated if God was eternal or not, I simply said "Because science cannot explain it, does not mean a God of any sorts did it. That's why your god is the god of the gaps" Religion is not trying to find the answers, they have a book written by man & they're going here is your answer, what proof do they have to support it? none. Then you have Science which looks for the answers, find evidence to support them, test them for years & if they work, it gets published there is your answer, if it doesn't they try again with a new hypothesis. Religion is not exempt from the Scientific method.


No I heard that part perfectly fine, you did state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is what the people you were debating against were saying about god. You said you can feel it and see it working but I could just as easily say I can feel the presence of god and I can see the work of god being done everyday via miracles. What I am saying is you should have said you cannot measure god, yet you can measure energy so it is a more viable and reliable source to depend on.

[Codeusa]

Please, do feel free to show me where I pulled my arguments from, wikipedia was it? Since you are discussing Somalia and Iran here I'll be discussing Islam instead of religions as a whole. Islam doesn't support abortions it frowns upon them, while some argue it is allowed in certain situations the fact of the matter stands that Islam promotes life, abortion would go against this. The only time Islam deems abortion acceptable is when the mother's life is in real danger. Now you can interprete the Qu'ran in many different ways and argue that abortion is accepted before 120 days, or 7 weeks etc, a religion promoting life and a religion that considers life to be sacred would consider preventing life bad (haram).

Both wudu (washing before prayer) and tahara (circumcision) promote cleanliness. Islam promotes clean sex in order to prevent infections. Islam also doesn't promote homicide or divorce so what aspects of religions actually contribute to what you've mentioned? If you suggest that not everyone follows religions to the letter, why bother making the point? If you suggest that ignorance to scientific information that may be beneficial to them is the reason, that doesn't mean religions is the fault of it.

The fact of the matter is that those countries are developing countries meaning a vast majority of people are ignorant to many things, this doesn't mean that they are ignorant because of religions. I'll presume you'll argue that religions ignore science and as a result are ignorant to things that may help them, but who says you cannot believe in both science and religion. The sole reason for the conditions people are living in those countries is not because of religion, it is because of lack of education.

Most atheist are well educated, a lot of religious people are not educated. This doesn't mean that religion causes these problems, it means that education helps prevent these problems.


I didn't ignore the other facts, I said "there are also things...". Note the also, I aknowledged your points and they are valid and good points. I was meerly stating that when you made your arguements you could have added more making them more solid.



No I heard that part perfectly fine, you did state that energy cannot be created or destroyed, which is what the people you were debating against were saying about god. You said you can feel it and see it working but I could just as easily say I can feel the presence of god and I can see the work of god being done everyday via miracles. What I am saying is you should have said you cannot measure god, yet you can measure energy so it is a more viable and reliable source to depend on.

Not even going to bother pointing out how you ignored my whole argument.

also you contradicted yourself. When Religion prevents a good education, that leads to the problems. Religion is the problem, my points still stand as statistics taken from those country's would agree with me.

Check

Again, we have evidence for energy being here, no god. The fact is, thereh ave been thousands of religions over the years of man & many more gods. All of them sell the same package.

Check mate.

[Relapse]

Not even going to bother pointing out how you ignored my whole argument.

also you contradicted yourself. When Religion prevents a good education, that leads to the problems. Religion is the problem, my points still stand as statistics taken from those country's would agree with me.

Check

Again, we have evidence for energy being here, no god. The fact is, thereh ave been thousands of religions over the years of man & many more gods. All of them sell the same package.

Check mate.

You debate the same way here as you did on your recording.

You take no time to actually debate the points against you.

You have to think of it as a game where for every good point you make you get + 1, and for every good rebuttal you make against the other debaters ideas, you get + 1 and they get -1. Same goes for them against you.

If you just throw out points and never debate a single idea, until you have proven your point and they can't debate it any farther, then the other person will always have an advantage because they are able to shoot down your ideas AND put their own ideas out there, and are not just throwing ones out there and then moving onto the next one.

Thats just the way I think of it and it seems to work out pretty decent for me.


I can't tell you the amount of people who know a lot about the subject, sometimes a lot more than I do myself, but their debate skills aren't up to par, so they can't effectively put all of their ideas out in a way that makes them seem right, even though the factual side may be more correct than myself.

[Slik]

Not even going to bother pointing out how you ignored my whole argument.

also you contradicted yourself. When Religion prevents a good education, that leads to the problems. Religion is the problem, my points still stand as statistics taken from those country's would agree with me.

Check

Again, we have evidence for energy being here, no god. The fact is, thereh ave been thousands of religions over the years of man & many more gods. All of them sell the same package.

Check mate.

You don't have to believe in science in order to receive a 'good' education. The fact that your saying poor countries are uneducated is insignificant, it does not prove your claim correct. Poor countries cannot afford education, that doesn't mean religions is at fault. Religions formed civil relations between people, which is one of the reasons it is found in every developing country. Religions doesn't restrict a person to complete and utter ignorance, you could say it restricts their maximium capacity but it doesn't stop people from learning.

I agree that athiests are better educated, but that doesn't mean that they are more educated because they are athiest, simply that they are athiests because they are better educated. Similarly people who believe in religions are generally less educated, they are not less educated because of religions.

If you believe in religions you tend to percept things in a creative and imaginative way compared to someone who disagrees with religions and uses numbers to back up their points.



“Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”


A creative and imaginative way to think doesn't necessarily mean it is an inferior way to think.

To a person who understands and applies logic to life atheism makes more sense, which is the reason they don't believe in god but instead things that make logical sense.

I would also like to point out that in today's society in some parts of the world religion still serves a very important part in keeping people civil. The fear factor keeps people in check, so it is a solution to a problem. If people fear living in hell and will not rape and kill people so they don't go to hell then let them believe in hell, it is doing justice.

I don't follow any religion incase you ask.

Out of curiosity who exactly where you debating from here?

[Brendan]

Codeusa, you're obviously an intelligent guy and you've got the smarts to back up that intelligence via research, statistics, all that stuff. I respect that, and I appreciate your points (I haven't listened to the linked recording, but I've read every significant post in this thread).

However, you've got a major problem. You're short-sighted in that you fail to even give a second thought to the possibility of religion and science coexisting harmoniously. Why must there be one or the other? Why can't they both exist together, and both have their cons and pros? That's the reality anyway - it's ignorant to claim otherwise. I've posted this quotation before, but I'll do so again for the purposes of giving my post some clarity and simplicity:

William Bragg:
"Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything."

Religion and science in a general and concentrated sense have different goals. Religion has always, is, and always will seek to express the meaning of our existence - the "why?". Science has always, is, and always will seek to express the mechanics of our existence - the "how?". One cannot cancel out the other, because that which fuels belief in the two are different. Religion requires faith to have validity. Science requires knowledge to have validity.

[Slik]

Codeusa, you're obviously an intelligent guy and you've got the smarts to back up that intelligence via research, statistics, all that stuff. I respect that, and I appreciate your points (I haven't listened to the linked recording, but I've read every significant post in this thread).

However, you've got a major problem. You're short-sighted in that you fail to even give a second thought to the possibility of religion and science coexisting harmoniously. Why must there be one or the other? Why can't they both exist together, and both have their cons and pros? That's the reality anyway - it's ignorant to claim otherwise. I've posted this quotation before, but I'll do so again for the purposes of giving my post some clarity and simplicity:

William Bragg:
"Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything."

Religion and science in a general and concentrated sense have different goals. Religion has always, is, and always will seek to express the meaning of our existence - the "why?". Science has always, is, and always will seek to express the mechanics of our existence - the "how?". One cannot cancel out the other, because that which fuels belief in the two are different. Religion requires faith to have validity. Science requires knowledge to have validity.

Well put, I don't understand why people can't grasp the possibility that you can have the best of both worlds, it isn't one or the other.

[Codeusa]

Codeusa, you're obviously an intelligent guy and you've got the smarts to back up that intelligence via research, statistics, all that stuff. I respect that, and I appreciate your points (I haven't listened to the linked recording, but I've read every significant post in this thread).

However, you've got a major problem. You're short-sighted in that you fail to even give a second thought to the possibility of religion and science coexisting harmoniously. Why must there be one or the other? Why can't they both exist together, and both have their cons and pros? That's the reality anyway - it's ignorant to claim otherwise. I've posted this quotation before, but I'll do so again for the purposes of giving my post some clarity and simplicity:

William Bragg:
"Religion and science are opposed...but only in the same sense as that in which my thumb and forefinger are opposed - and between the two, one can grasp anything."

Religion and science in a general and concentrated sense have different goals. Religion has always, is, and always will seek to express the meaning of our existence - the "why?". Science has always, is, and always will seek to express the mechanics of our existence - the "how?". One cannot cancel out the other, because that which fuels belief in the two are different. Religion requires faith to have validity. Science requires knowledge to have validity.

Well see I know they can coexist, but the chances of that happening are not that great. I have a lot of Religious friends who accept Science for what it has to say, they just believe god plays a part in it. That's okay for me, as long as they aren't being ignorant to the world around them.

My problem lies with people who rather not question their faith, who won't seek more information & are being oppressed by a book written by man, to the point it drives them to kill or break. I've seen the good Religion and faith can do, and I've seen the bad, from a personal view & from 1st person witness. When I went to Afghanistan 2 years ago (wasn't in the military, but I worked for a contracting company who got a job there) I was working on building schools & housing for people who had lost their homes to the war. While there I saw the beating a women simply for wearing leggings under her burka, they lashed her in the face, tore up her back. And I so badly wanted to pull out the pistol they had serviced all of us and shoot these men dead. But doing that would have had me killed along with me crew. and just been another conflict of interested for the united states government. and another reason for them to keep this pointless war going on. My problem with religion lies with the mental and physical abuse it causes.

[Brendan]

Well see I know they can coexist, but the chances of that happening are not that great. I have a lot of Religious friends who accept Science for what it has to say, they just believe god plays a part in it. That's okay for me, as long as they aren't being ignorant to the world around them.

My problem lies with people who rather not question their faith, who won't seek more information & are being oppressed by a book written by man, to the point it drives them to kill or break. I've seen the good Religion and faith can do, and I've seen the bad, from a personal view & from 1st person witness. When I went to Afghanistan 2 years ago (wasn't in the military, but I worked for a contracting company who got a job there) I was working on building schools & housing for people who had lost their homes to the war. While there I saw the beating a women simply for wearing leggings under her burka, they lashed her in the face, tore up her back. And I so badly wanted to pull out the pistol they had serviced all of us and shoot these men dead. But doing that would have had me killed along with me crew. and just been another conflict of interested for the united states government. and another reason for them to keep this pointless war going on. My problem with religion lies with the mental and physical abuse it causes.

Christy Moore:
"Only the very safe can talk about wrong and right. Of those who were forced to choose, there're some who will choose to fight.

That's all I have to say. I'm drunk, so that might not make any sense. Apologies.