People just keep saying the same things. Their opinions won't ever change so it is a waste of time. People just keep saying the same things. Their opinions won't ever change so it is a waste of time. People just keep saying the same things. Their opinions won't ever change so it is a waste of time.
Because religious people are stubborn as hell, and they won't change their mind even if we put up a ton of evidence he doesn't exist. For example, where does this god live? Why isn't he helping starving people? Why isn't he helping mankind? Aren't you saying he is the "forgiving and loving god"? It's all irrelevant. Please stop debating this.
I don't think that there should be a debate over whether or not a particular religion is "right" or"wrong" because there is no factual evidence behind religion, a person's beliefs. All religion is based on faith-- faith found in each individual. Therefor, no one really knows the truth. They just know what they believe. It's not like we will ever see a day where everyone believes in the same thing (at least I hope not), hence the reason behind freedom of religion. Religion goes so far back into family roots and history that it's not going anywhere.
Now if you step back from the argumentative side of it all and just focus on the education part of it all, I'm all for that! I think that it is important to educate yourself on many different religions-- especially when you're raised in a household that's always practiced one religion because you gain a better understanding of yourself and others. If only we could share views without having to fight and point fingers over right and wrong.
All religions are based on some form of God, god, or gods, which can't be proven. God, god, and gods are based solely on faith. So you can't really convince someone who believes and as faith. God and religion have been debated for thousands of years with no winners.
It is like debating politics, which is totally pointless
A man could spend hours trying to prove to a religious man that God is a myth, only to have a near-death experience and gain religion the next day. Or, a religious man could be trying to tell an atheist that God exists and the next day he has a near-death experience and his faith in God is broken.
I say it's just people banging their heads against a wall all around, just like we've been doing for centuries. People scream "YOU NEED GOD!" other people scream "GOD'S A LIE" nobody gains any ground. Harsh Atheists love to talk about how Religion has "caused all the worlds problems" but forget that 9/10 the cause is man's inhumanity towards man, not the religious text, and they forget about the MASSIVE amount of good the church has done.
Harsh Religious folk often disregard the scientific studies, like, say the Big bang, that would alter what they have been taught and what they perceive as truth.
Bottom line: stop wasting time in the philosophical realm, whining and bickering, and start looking at real problems. While we are sitting here debating Jesus, nobody is talking about how violence has increased in Iraq!
I thought that discrimination was over after the civil war. People have different beliefs and we should support that. Why are Americans so hateful towards Muslims and Jews and Hindus and anyone other than Christians or Americans with no religion. Why are people who are different so hated? Is there something wrong with being non-american or non-christian? In the pledge of allegiance, it says liberty and justice for all. That means EVERYONE. If we are all american citizens, then why is there no liberty and justice for people other than rich, white, christian, stuck up, spoiled brats?
Let's put it this way. Say you have your own bias soccer team. When a supporter of an opposing team says their team is better. They give you tons of facts and arguments that all definitively point that your bias team is lousier. Are you going to swallow that up and accept it?
It is one thing to pretend you accept it and another to actually accept it. Same thing with religion. Sure among soccer fans, a bunch of them while supporting opposing teams can sit together and watch with tolerance to each other. However let's not forget there are just as many or even more who are not tolerant of their rivals and their supporters.
Same thing again applies to religion and the fact is many people are not tolerant of each other. We can see this all over the news, own experience. Even tolerant people are only tolerant on the surface. So it's a waste of time. Best to just focus on how to make sure people stay at least at the surface level tolerant. Such as that they do not dare to act upon their hate impulses towards the rivals.
Most of the relegions are heavily based on thier scriptures and books,which is never going to be edited or upgraded. And people have been debating since the time these relegions came into being... Still the relegions exist the same ,though how much u debate to make people believe in a relegion.
Relegions are really under stress , because science and technology these days along with historical fossils and ancient dating , evolution , creation of universe etc are becoming more advanced and new fields of science are being explored...Which the relegious people find difficult to explain based on thier relegions..
Thats why athiesm is growing ....And i believe by 2050,half of the world will be athiest. So theres no good in debating relegion ..Rather there is good in keeping humanity alive and loving eachother....
Relegion is like a cancer dont let it take over you....Too much of anything is not good
We're wasting our time debating religion. There is no proof that god exists, but there is no proof that god doesn't exist. Its kinda like Last Thursdayism, the theory that the universe was made last thursday. There is no proof that its true, but there is no proof that isn't. My point is that we're wasting our time debating whether or not something that has no proof of existing... Exists at all.
There is no way to completely prove the existence of god, or any god for that matter. As much as one person may believe in one thing or another, those who don't will not be easily swayed without physical proof. I personally think we shouldn't argue with each other over what we can and can't believe.
I use to be a Christian, but I had questions that the my religion could not answer. Over time I started to have doubts about what I was taught. The more I read the more I learned and my doubts grew. Slowly over time I quit believing in faith, faith proved to be an unreliable path to the truth. So I embraced logic and reason, I took a class in critical thinking and I found that it's ok not to know things no one can know, and it's ok to ask questions. So to answer your question, "Is debating religion a waste of time?" no it's not and thank you for the question, have a nice day.
Debating pretty much ANYTHING is most certainly NOT a waste of time. As Mahatma Ghandi said; “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”. Debates are good for us; and when it comes down to it, there is no such thing as a good debate being a “waste of time.” Whether or not it’s about religion; it shouldn’t matter. If it’s a controversial topic (and religion is definitely a controversial topic), there were inevitably be ‘honest disagreements’, and from there we get our debates. No debate is a bad debate.
Debating religion if anything helps both sides of the spectrum ( atheist and theist) understand each other. Furthermore, it helps people to have respect for each other. Whether you believe in religion or not, it doesn't mean you have to hate the other person or insult someone's intelligence as many do on here.
The biggest problem I see when it comes to these debates is believers in Christ sometimes see the sinner as sin in it's self and atheist sometimes see believers in Christ as homophobic, racist, delusional, dumb, narcissistic, bigots that have nothing better to do except pick on those who don't believe in Christ. The list is much longer than that in reality, but the point is without respect no debate is a good debate.
So, keep the emotions out of the debate and try your best not to let your passion drive your emotions out of control. Or else daggers will be coming from your mouth.
To silence all discussion of religion is akin to tyranny. I believe religion is an important thing to discuss. It's also one way to work out our differences in a democratic way. Everyone is gonna have their own religious opinion, but it's discussing it that makes us democratic and avoids the persecution that has been done in society in the past.
Being able to maturely debate religion is a very healthy and intelligent thing to do.
As a believer - one should be willing to discuss religion so that they know all the opposing viewpoints that challenge theirs. How can you truly know you're right if you don't even bother checking out the alternatives?
As a nonbeliever - one should be able to support their ideas and represent the growing minority of skepticism. We won't get anywhere as a species if we don't share ideas.
Being too polite to discuss something that is so vital to our decision making process is harmful to us all.
When debating apologists or other people that make money of the theistic shenanigans it is an absolute waste of time. However, those theists with a portion of rationality in their mind make the debates worth while. In any debate you need reason and if a person holds any reason they will listen, apologists on the other hand don't reason they just use the same tired arguments that get disproved over and over again.
When I use the word debate I don't mean argument, I mean discussion. There are always two sides to every story, and just because I don't necessarily believe that the world was created in seven days by Brahma in the name of Muhammad, and is maintained by the great Tao, doesn't mean that I shouldn't try to understand. A waste of time is when the debate is entered by either party with a goal of defeating the opposing view. Both ideals, that of religion and that of atheism, are just that- ideals. They both strive to improve on the world around them, perhaps in different ways, but improve none the less. As the late Nelson Mandela said, "A good leader can engage in a debate frankly and thoroughly, knowing that at the end he and the other side must be closer, and thus emerge stronger" In this sense we must strive to be leaders.
Apart from the troll value (fun) in digging holes in religious nonsense, there is also learning from both sides, a good Atheist debater can make points that may make a Theist think more rationally about their own position, this is rare, but I know of Theists, even a Theologian who considered the points so much that they too are now Atheists.
Yet even Atheists can learn why there may be some rational or very personal reasons why a Theist is a believer, so Atheists can learn to understand Theists and thus tolerance through debates.
There is a chance for learning from both sides in Debating.
Debates can introduce people to concepts they may never have seen, heard of or ever considered before viewing the debate.
That is what learning is all about, being introduced to new concepts.
Though there is often value in reinforcing old concepts repetitively.
This is not only about the existence of a god, but about how society is affected by religious views. For example, many anti-abortion supporters tie their religious beliefs to political votes/actions. While I'm still on the fence about this topic myself, I feel it's extremely important to talk about the implications of religion and challenge others' views. Not to pressure them to accept our own views, but to bring up important considerations.
I disagree with the user who said "religious people are stubborn as hell". Some are, yes. But if they were that stubborn, we would still live in a society where those who didn't attend church every single Sunday were condemned and associated with the devil. A more recent example is the use of birth control in the US. Doctors weren't allowed to prescribe anything of the sorts in the early 20th century. Now they are. Good change? Certainly. Did it take some debate? Yes. Was it a waste of time? No.