Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Religious debate is still interesting?

dexterbeagle
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:05:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

I agree that the quality of the debating has fallen a few orders of magnitude, but IMHO that is because so many people were relying on the likes of Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins to provide arguments which they could repeat instead of thinking it through and arguing their own views and reason. And the same was true on both sides of the argument. There are very few people, it seems, who are willing to honestly discuss the subject with respect and forbearance for the opposite side. Why blame anyone for using their brain to reach conclusions which seem logical to them? I'd be more interested in discussions covering the plausibility of certain claims instead of ones which claim to prove it, especially since it can't be proved one way or the other.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:28:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think that people are too often only seeking to be 'right', and to be heard, instead of seeking to hear and understand the other person's vision and experience of reality. And therefor there is no discussion, or even any real debate. Both sides just argue past each other, and nothing is learned.

I also think that most people have a terribly shallow and biased grasp of their own positions as theists or atheists. Neither seems to have even a rudimentary grasp of the difference between the methodology of religion and theology. Nor between the methodology of science and the philosophical speculations of theoretical physics.

And the result is often a lot of bickering in defense of nonsense.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:50:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.

No disrespect, and that is certainly your choice to make, but don't you find that the circular arguments which are borne-out by confining all parties to one source from which to make their arguments kind of narrow? I mean, if we can't include the physical world that we live in along with descriptions written about past events then it's more a history discussion, isn't it?
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:53:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:28:25 PM, PureX wrote:
I think that people are too often only seeking to be 'right', and to be heard, instead of seeking to hear and understand the other person's vision and experience of reality. And therefor there is no discussion, or even any real debate. Both sides just argue past each other, and nothing is learned.

I'm afraid that's nearly always the case. Not always, but usually.

I also think that most people have a terribly shallow and biased grasp of their own positions as theists or atheists. Neither seems to have even a rudimentary grasp of the difference between the methodology of religion and theology.

LOL I doubt that there would be agreement on the definitions of "religion" and "theology", much less of positions. I know that I define "religion" and "theology" very, very differently, but some folks seem to use the terms interchangeably.

Also, one's attitude toward the Bible is perhaps the defining factor concerning his views. I still remember being ... ummm ... shocked by a Catholic girl's replies way back in junior high school. I had never met a Catholic (There are perhaps 200 Catholics in this city of 25,000). Even back then, I saw right quick that her "religion" revolved around "proving" the authority of the Catholic Church by the Bible. After establishing that, the Bible sorta diminished in usefulness for she now had an authoritative, inerrant church to tell her everything else.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 7:57:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:50:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.

No disrespect, and that is certainly your choice to make, but don't you find that the circular arguments which are borne-out by confining all parties to one source from which to make their arguments kind of narrow? I mean, if we can't include the physical world that we live in along with descriptions written about past events then it's more a history discussion, isn't it?

How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

In my naivete, that's actually what I thought this site was for, back when I first joined. It turned out that almost every thread either started out or wound up as "Is there a God?" I could make a thread in here on "How to Fry Squash", and within ten posts, someone would say, "Yeah, but prove that God exists."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 8:02:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:57:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:50:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.

No disrespect, and that is certainly your choice to make, but don't you find that the circular arguments which are borne-out by confining all parties to one source from which to make their arguments kind of narrow? I mean, if we can't include the physical world that we live in along with descriptions written about past events then it's more a history discussion, isn't it?

How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

In my naivete, that's actually what I thought this site was for, back when I first joined. It turned out that almost every thread either started out or wound up as "Is there a God?" I could make a thread in here on "How to Fry Squash", and within ten posts, someone would say, "Yeah, but prove that God exists."

What if I wanted to have a discussion on everyone's perception of the nature of God as evidenced by his creation as it exists today? Is that not a fair topic, and wouldn't it require a working understanding of the physical world? People will always abuse what they can. All a decent person can do in response is to ignore it. As Einstein said, "Only a fool tries to answer every question." There are a lot of fools in this world, it seems. :)
PureX
Posts: 1,522
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 8:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 7:53:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
Also, one's attitude toward the Bible is perhaps the defining factor concerning his views. I still remember being ... ummm ... shocked by a Catholic girl's replies way back in junior high school. I had never met a Catholic (There are perhaps 200 Catholics in this city of 25,000). Even back then, I saw right quick that her "religion" revolved around "proving" the authority of the Catholic Church by the Bible. After establishing that, the Bible sorta diminished in usefulness for she now had an authoritative, inerrant church to tell her everything else.

Yes, the sickness of authoritarianism has long ago infected organized religion, particularly Islam and Christianity. And authoritarians do not discuss or debate, or seek to learn, anything. They only seek to impose and defend their imagined authority, so as to maintain their addiction to the illusion of their own righteousness that imagined authority provides them

. What puzzles me is why other people waste so much time arguing with them, when clearly, they are not willing or often even able to listen, or to consider any argument offered, reasonable or otherwise. I suspect that their opponents are equally addicted to their own visions of self-righteousness, and have been drawn into some sick co-dependent righteousness battle.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 9:02:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 8:02:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:57:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:50:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.

No disrespect, and that is certainly your choice to make, but don't you find that the circular arguments which are borne-out by confining all parties to one source from which to make their arguments kind of narrow? I mean, if we can't include the physical world that we live in along with descriptions written about past events then it's more a history discussion, isn't it?

How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

In my naivete, that's actually what I thought this site was for, back when I first joined. It turned out that almost every thread either started out or wound up as "Is there a God?" I could make a thread in here on "How to Fry Squash", and within ten posts, someone would say, "Yeah, but prove that God exists."

What if I wanted to have a discussion on everyone's perception of the nature of God as evidenced by his creation as it exists today? Is that not a fair topic, and wouldn't it require a working understanding of the physical world?

Yeah, and within ten posts some moron would leap in and say, "First prove there is a God, then we'll worry about His nature." I have some nominees for likely jumper-inners.

People will always abuse what they can. All a decent person can do in response is to ignore it. As Einstein said, "Only a fool tries to answer every question." There are a lot of fools in this world, it seems. :)

I had asked, "How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

I'm still wondering that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 9:08:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 8:18:28 PM, PureX wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:53:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
Also, one's attitude toward the Bible is perhaps the defining factor concerning his views. I still remember being ... ummm ... shocked by a Catholic girl's replies way back in junior high school. I had never met a Catholic (There are perhaps 200 Catholics in this city of 25,000). Even back then, I saw right quick that her "religion" revolved around "proving" the authority of the Catholic Church by the Bible. After establishing that, the Bible sorta diminished in usefulness for she now had an authoritative, inerrant church to tell her everything else.

Yes, the sickness of authoritarianism has long ago infected organized religion, particularly Islam and Christianity. And authoritarians do not discuss or debate, or seek to learn, anything. They only seek to impose and defend their imagined authority, so as to maintain their addiction to the illusion of their own righteousness that imagined authority provides them

. What puzzles me is why other people waste so much time arguing with them, when clearly, they are not willing or often even able to listen, or to consider any argument offered, reasonable or otherwise. I suspect that their opponents are equally addicted to their own visions of self-righteousness, and have been drawn into some sick co-dependent righteousness battle.

Sometimes I'll respond, believe it or not, just to keep my mind fresh on a topic I had long-since forgotten about. At times, I have responded to MadCornish (Jehovah's Witness who claims to only follow WatchTower teachings insofar as they correctly teach the Bible) just to see what kind of nonsense he'll produce.

I have nothing against so-called "organized religion" just so long as it is organized with strict adherence to the NT examples, if the alternative is "disorganized religion." I do have a problem with these concocted hierarchies pretending that they can issue edicts that are to be obeyed - and another problem with them getting paid to do so.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
dexterbeagle
Posts: 13
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 9:41:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I enjoy the Bible as good literature, but my history master"s thesis was on the political ramifications of the protestant ramification and its contribution to European intellectual traditions. Martin Luther writing shows a remarkable intellectual depth in his argument for faith, which is quite different from how most theists and atheists understand today. For Luther, Christians do not have a subjective first person belief, instead God believes through scripture. Luther agreed with Christopher Hitchens in the sense he found that if works or questioning one"s sincerity of belief or wondering whether one had a selfish interest in doing good turned God tyrant, a being worthy of hatred. Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Thomas M"ntzer provide every interesting arguments that cannot be dismissed as shallow but I think require respect for their talent as intellectuals in their own right. But I do think atheist waste their time attacking religion not because their arguments are wrong but because people have odd, irrational beliefs but I wouldn't want to spend hours upon hours thinking about the stupidity of other peoples beliefs. Confrontational atheism really provides nothing constructive, especially for atheists"it is even more meaningless than trying to convince sports fanatics that sports is a waste for society both in the attention it receives and the resources that are wasted.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:05:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 9:41:54 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
I enjoy the Bible as good literature, but my history master"s thesis was on the political ramifications of the protestant ramification and its contribution to European intellectual traditions. Martin Luther writing shows a remarkable intellectual depth in his argument for faith, which is quite different from how most theists and atheists understand today. For Luther, Christians do not have a subjective first person belief, instead God believes through scripture. Luther agreed with Christopher Hitchens in the sense he found that if works or questioning one"s sincerity of belief or wondering whether one had a selfish interest in doing good turned God tyrant, a being worthy of hatred. Martin Luther, Huldrych Zwingli, Thomas M"ntzer provide every interesting arguments that cannot be dismissed as shallow but I think require respect for their talent as intellectuals in their own right. But I do think atheist waste their time attacking religion not because their arguments are wrong but because people have odd, irrational beliefs but I wouldn't want to spend hours upon hours thinking about the stupidity of other peoples beliefs. Confrontational atheism really provides nothing constructive, especially for atheists"it is even more meaningless than trying to convince sports fanatics that sports is a waste for society both in the attention it receives and the resources that are wasted.

Do you mean that the actions of confrontational theists are just as meaningless as trying to convince sports fanatics that sports is a waste for society both in the attention it receives and the resources that are wasted?
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 10:36:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 9:02:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 8:02:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:57:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:50:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.

No disrespect, and that is certainly your choice to make, but don't you find that the circular arguments which are borne-out by confining all parties to one source from which to make their arguments kind of narrow? I mean, if we can't include the physical world that we live in along with descriptions written about past events then it's more a history discussion, isn't it?

How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

In my naivete, that's actually what I thought this site was for, back when I first joined. It turned out that almost every thread either started out or wound up as "Is there a God?" I could make a thread in here on "How to Fry Squash", and within ten posts, someone would say, "Yeah, but prove that God exists."

What if I wanted to have a discussion on everyone's perception of the nature of God as evidenced by his creation as it exists today? Is that not a fair topic, and wouldn't it require a working understanding of the physical world?

Yeah, and within ten posts some moron would leap in and say, "First prove there is a God, then we'll worry about His nature." I have some nominees for likely jumper-inners.

People will always abuse what they can. All a decent person can do in response is to ignore it. As Einstein said, "Only a fool tries to answer every question." There are a lot of fools in this world, it seems. :)

I had asked, "How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

I'm still wondering that.

You gave examples of questions which didn't necessarily include physics. I gave an example of a question in which physics would play an important part. We were both giving examples. My point was that a good understanding of physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2014 11:04:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 10:36:41 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 9:02:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 8:02:12 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:57:54 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:50:50 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:43:15 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 7:09:01 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:37:22 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 6:25:08 PM, dexterbeagle wrote:
Even though I am an atheist, I have to say this debate is so incredibly boring. When Hitchens, Harris, and Dawkins published their string in the mid-2000s there were some incredibly novel arguments and provided some easy to memorize answers when confronted by believers, but the overwhelming account of arguments based around these debates is absurd. At this point there is more intellectual honesty is debating the merits of types of cleaning products or methods for getting rid of ants.

That's because nine out of ten theists (and I'll just call them Christians for our purposes) do not delve into science deeply enough to have a good working knowledge along those lines, whereas nine out of ten atheists know practically nothing about the Bible. To make matters worse, Christians have a nasty habit of adhering to a form of pseudoscience as advocated on certain websites, not to mention the many ridiculous interpretations assigned to scriptures by atheists.

That's why I so rarely enter into discussions revolving solely around science, unless they have to do with medicine/surgery. I've forgotten 95% of everything I ever knew about physics.

I've forgotten a lot of what I know of physics as well, but then the main reason I became interested in the first place was due to the discussions which I became involved in over the subjects of God and science.

I'm the opposite. I actually much prefer discussions between Bible believers on particular topics.

No disrespect, and that is certainly your choice to make, but don't you find that the circular arguments which are borne-out by confining all parties to one source from which to make their arguments kind of narrow? I mean, if we can't include the physical world that we live in along with descriptions written about past events then it's more a history discussion, isn't it?

How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

In my naivete, that's actually what I thought this site was for, back when I first joined. It turned out that almost every thread either started out or wound up as "Is there a God?" I could make a thread in here on "How to Fry Squash", and within ten posts, someone would say, "Yeah, but prove that God exists."

What if I wanted to have a discussion on everyone's perception of the nature of God as evidenced by his creation as it exists today? Is that not a fair topic, and wouldn't it require a working understanding of the physical world?

Yeah, and within ten posts some moron would leap in and say, "First prove there is a God, then we'll worry about His nature." I have some nominees for likely jumper-inners.

People will always abuse what they can. All a decent person can do in response is to ignore it. As Einstein said, "Only a fool tries to answer every question." There are a lot of fools in this world, it seems. :)

I had asked, "How could you include the physical world if the topic is "Will Christ return to earth and reign a literal thousand years?" or "Must one be baptized in order to be saved?" or a thousand other such questions.

I'm still wondering that.

You gave examples of questions which didn't necessarily include physics. I gave an example of a question in which physics would play an important part. We were both giving examples. My point was that a good understanding of physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate.

As far as I know, a knowledge of physics would have little or nothing to do with engaging in religious debate. I have perhaps 150 or so religious debate books dating back to 1820 or so, and not a single proposition under consideration would require much of a knowledge of physics. Examples include:

"The Bible teaches that bap"tism to a pen"i"tent believer is for (in order to) the remis"sion of past sins"

"The Bible teaches that in con"vic"tion and con"ver"sion the Holy Spirit exer"cises a power of influ"ence directly on the heart of the sin"ner"

"The Bible teaches that it is pos"si"ble for a child of God to apos"tate so as to finally be lost"

"The Bible teaches that the Church of the New Tes"ta"ment was set up, orga"nized or estab"lished dur"ing the per"sonal min"istry of Christ"

"MIRACLES AND DIVINE HEALING, AS TAUGHT AND MANIFESTED IN THE WORD OF GOD, CEASED WITH THE CLOSING OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE"

Those are just a few of hundreds of examples. Not a one requires any knowledge whatsoever of physics, as the Bible really doesn't delve into physics very much - or least is hardly designed as a physics texts. Debates requiring a knowledge of physics would, I presume, be conducted between physicists.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 3:31:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/25/2014 11:04:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:36:41 PM, Idealist wrote:

You gave examples of questions which didn't necessarily include physics. I gave an example of a question in which physics would play an important part. We were both giving examples. My point was that a good understanding of physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate.

As far as I know, a knowledge of physics would have little or nothing to do with engaging in religious debate. I have perhaps 150 or so religious debate books dating back to 1820 or so, and not a single proposition under consideration would require much of a knowledge of physics. Examples include:

"The Bible teaches that bap"tism to a pen"i"tent believer is for (in order to) the remis"sion of past sins"

"The Bible teaches that in con"vic"tion and con"ver"sion the Holy Spirit exer"cises a power of influ"ence directly on the heart of the sin"ner"

"The Bible teaches that it is pos"si"ble for a child of God to apos"tate so as to finally be lost"

"The Bible teaches that the Church of the New Tes"ta"ment was set up, orga"nized or estab"lished dur"ing the per"sonal min"istry of Christ"

"MIRACLES AND DIVINE HEALING, AS TAUGHT AND MANIFESTED IN THE WORD OF GOD, CEASED WITH THE CLOSING OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE"

Those are just a few of hundreds of examples. Not a one requires any knowledge whatsoever of physics, as the Bible really doesn't delve into physics very much - or least is hardly designed as a physics texts. Debates requiring a knowledge of physics would, I presume, be conducted between physicists.

I didn't limit myself to the Bible. I said that "physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate." If you wish to get to know a musician you study their music. If you wish to better appreciate a painter you do it through their art. If you want to better understand a Creator then the most direct means would by by studying his creation until you know it as best you can.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 3:45:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 3:31:46 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 11:04:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:36:41 PM, Idealist wrote:

You gave examples of questions which didn't necessarily include physics. I gave an example of a question in which physics would play an important part. We were both giving examples. My point was that a good understanding of physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate.

As far as I know, a knowledge of physics would have little or nothing to do with engaging in religious debate. I have perhaps 150 or so religious debate books dating back to 1820 or so, and not a single proposition under consideration would require much of a knowledge of physics. Examples include:

"The Bible teaches that bap"tism to a pen"i"tent believer is for (in order to) the remis"sion of past sins"

"The Bible teaches that in con"vic"tion and con"ver"sion the Holy Spirit exer"cises a power of influ"ence directly on the heart of the sin"ner"

"The Bible teaches that it is pos"si"ble for a child of God to apos"tate so as to finally be lost"

"The Bible teaches that the Church of the New Tes"ta"ment was set up, orga"nized or estab"lished dur"ing the per"sonal min"istry of Christ"

"MIRACLES AND DIVINE HEALING, AS TAUGHT AND MANIFESTED IN THE WORD OF GOD, CEASED WITH THE CLOSING OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE"

Those are just a few of hundreds of examples. Not a one requires any knowledge whatsoever of physics, as the Bible really doesn't delve into physics very much - or least is hardly designed as a physics texts. Debates requiring a knowledge of physics would, I presume, be conducted between physicists.

I didn't limit myself to the Bible. I said that "physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate." If you wish to get to know a musician you study their music. If you wish to better appreciate a painter you do it through their art. If you want to better understand a Creator then the most direct means would by by studying his creation until you know it as best you can.

Well, I doubt that one is gonna get a good handle on God by mastering the Pythagoreum theorum. I believe I am correct in stating that physics would only be useful in the more narrow debating arena: it would only come up if someone were trying to prove/disprove the existence of God(s). While that seems to be very, very important to folks on here, it actually constitutes only the smallest portion of "religious debates."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2014 4:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/26/2014 3:45:09 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/26/2014 3:31:46 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 6/25/2014 11:04:21 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/25/2014 10:36:41 PM, Idealist wrote:

You gave examples of questions which didn't necessarily include physics. I gave an example of a question in which physics would play an important part. We were both giving examples. My point was that a good understanding of physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate.

As far as I know, a knowledge of physics would have little or nothing to do with engaging in religious debate. I have perhaps 150 or so religious debate books dating back to 1820 or so, and not a single proposition under consideration would require much of a knowledge of physics. Examples include:

"The Bible teaches that bap"tism to a pen"i"tent believer is for (in order to) the remis"sion of past sins"

"The Bible teaches that in con"vic"tion and con"ver"sion the Holy Spirit exer"cises a power of influ"ence directly on the heart of the sin"ner"

"The Bible teaches that it is pos"si"ble for a child of God to apos"tate so as to finally be lost"

"The Bible teaches that the Church of the New Tes"ta"ment was set up, orga"nized or estab"lished dur"ing the per"sonal min"istry of Christ"

"MIRACLES AND DIVINE HEALING, AS TAUGHT AND MANIFESTED IN THE WORD OF GOD, CEASED WITH THE CLOSING OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE"

Those are just a few of hundreds of examples. Not a one requires any knowledge whatsoever of physics, as the Bible really doesn't delve into physics very much - or least is hardly designed as a physics texts. Debates requiring a knowledge of physics would, I presume, be conducted between physicists.

I didn't limit myself to the Bible. I said that "physics is important to anyone who wishes to engage in religious debate." If you wish to get to know a musician you study their music. If you wish to better appreciate a painter you do it through their art. If you want to better understand a Creator then the most direct means would by by studying his creation until you know it as best you can.

Well, I doubt that one is gonna get a good handle on God by mastering the Pythagoreum theorum. I believe I am correct in stating that physics would only be useful in the more narrow debating arena: it would only come up if someone were trying to prove/disprove the existence of God(s). While that seems to be very, very important to folks on here, it actually constitutes only the smallest portion of "religious debates."

I don't agree. I belong to a few sites which are strictly devoted to the discussion of religion, and by far the main topic on all of them are whether or not there exists any logical reason for believing in creation. It is also the main subject of most of the best-selling books on religion these days. Many people find internal religious discussion to be very dry and boring, sort of like being a Constitutional scholar. And what do you really accomplish except to start more arguments over everyone's personal interpretations of everything the Bible says?