Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasquatch
You don't believe in the same religion as somebody else might. We get it. That's your right. You believe whatever you want. Good for you.
But again -- just because you don't follow the same religious belief as somebody else does not mean that they are somehow stupid. So drop the arrogant attempt at a mental superiority complex, it's really annoying. (And slightly amusingly ironic, considering most of the ones trying to employ it.)
I also value and accept each and every person's right to believe whatever they like, however not all beliefs have the support of a valid argument, which is generally what a debate is based on. Though you said that post was directed at no one, I'll assume at least a part of it was in response to me, if not my apologies, but I feel the need to clarify this anyways.
When I disagree with a person and poke holes in an argument, it is because I see flaws within the logic that makes the argument as a whole weak, and unable to carry the weight of its conclusion. This isn't to attack the belief itself, merely to make each and every person question their reasons for believing something. If one's only reason for having a belief were the evidence they had for it, and I was able to prove that that evidence was unable to support the conclusion, someone might reexamine the evidence and find another solution. When a group of people are working to find the answer to a complicated question, being proven wrong is not a bad thing. It allows us to stop working under an inaccurate assumption, and move on to finding a better one, getting closer and closer to absolute truth. I don't argue to sound superior or feel superior or any such nonsense, my intellect, whether what it actually is or what it is perceived to be by those around me is entirely irrelevant. Being wrong, or having a flawed argument doesn't make a person stupid, nor does being stupid make a person's arguments worth any less. Debates of this sort should be conducted solely for the purpose of evaluating the worth of ideas, that we may better understand them. Challenging an idea, whether that challenge 'defeats' the idea or not, helps us to move ever closer to truth. I don't argue because I think I'm intelligent, on the contrary, I argue to become more intelligent. I argue because I am perfectly aware of my own uncertainty, and wish to test the strength of my ideas and others, to see which ideas are most worthy of belief. When I offer a poor argument and someone comes and kicks its ass with valid arguments, solid evidence, and worthwhile ideas, I learn from them, I don't feel personally threatened, nor is it my intention to make others feel that way when I poke holes in an argument.
Quote:
My truck is in my garage. My garage is not empty, there is not somebody else's vehicle in my garage, it's my truck. I firmly believe that. My faith in that idea is very strong -- so much so, in fact, that I would be comfortable saying that I know that my truck is in my garage.
Now, do I actually know that for a fact? Well, since I'm not in my garage looking at my truck's VIN, of course I don't -- for all I know, somebody could have stolen my truck, or the garage might have burned down, or aliens might have warped my truck out to their planet and replaced it with a hologram. But I have faith that my truck is in my garage, and for good reasons.
Do you know where I live? Does anybody here know where I live? If you happened to drive past my place, you would see my home, my garage, and even my truck.
That makes sense, right? You'd see my truck. Just making sure you're still with me, here.
But would you know what it was? Would you know that it's my truck, in my garage? Of course not. You just don't have the reasons that I do to believe that.
And that's all it boils down to. You don't have the same reasons we do for believing -- whether it's a religion or whether it's whose truck is in whose garage. And that's it. We may see the same things, but we see them differently, and with different reasons behind them.
In the end, regardless of who sees what and how they interpret it, your truck either is or is not in your garage. It doesn't really matter what anybody thought about it or if they were right or wrong. The truth doesn't care who understands it. When we compare and contrast our ideas, discarding those which the evidence does not support, we come closer to understanding the truth of the matter. To discard the ideas that are not truth, we examine our reasons for believing them, and the evidence in reality. The sum of these two parts is an argument. By comparing arguments in a debate, we seek to determine which idea is more worthy of belief. This doesn't mean we demand the 'losers' to abandon their belief, simply to point out that their arguments have not yet established truth. We all have the right to believe anything, we are born with this right, but the right to know the truth, that must be earned, and this is the process.
Quote:
As much as Atheists bitch and moan about having religion "shoved down their throats", here they are, insulting the religions of others. Obviously, you won't believe the same things as I do, because you haven't seen the same things.
Now, you might claim that people who have seen the same things are not credible or trustworthy, but here's the thing ... This may surprise you, so make sure you're sitting down. Ready? Alright, here we go.
NOBODY GIVES A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK.
When one enters into a debate by observing conflicting ideas claiming to be truth, they consent to hearing and considering the ideas of another based upon their arguments, it's not being shoved down one's throat, it's being offered along with a reason why it should be accepted. This is normal, and perfectly acceptable. On occasion however, someone sets the stage for such a debate, but then ignores the rules, trying to claim knowledge of truth without having earned the right to that claim. When one claims their idea is truth, and that all others must accept it without being able to justify that claim, that is shoving ones idea down someone else's throat. That comes from both sides, not just the theists'. One usually doesn't see such things in a debate such as this. When one does, as can be seen here, it is usually shot down quickly with a barrage of questions.
Quote:
I'm not sure if that's something new to you, or if you're used to being extremely unimportant, but it should be the latter. Really, do you think that if one ignorant little child on the internet was enough to make people lose their religion, that you would be the first?
It is not my intention to make anybody lose their religion, nor do I believe it's anyone elses. If it is, I am forced to say they are morons. With these arguments, nobody has proven that there is no God or that any religion is wrong, simply that it has not earned the right to declare itself the truth. Opinions are fine as long as we keep in mind, that is all they are. When we try to act as though they are facts, we must be able to support them as such. If we can't, we do not have the right to treat them as facts.
Quote:
We have our beliefs that have been reinforced by what we've been exposed to. So do you.
We all do. It's impossible to not have some belief, some idea of what we think is the truth. But as long as we acknowledge they are nothing more than beliefs, this isn't a problem. When we bring beliefs to a debate, it isn't to destroy the beliefs of others, simply to determine whether any of them qualify to become more than just a belief. Ideas of religion and the existence of the divine have been struggling to be accepted as truth for ages without success, but the beliefs are still alive and well no matter how many times they failed to earn the right to be called the truth. This will continue until one DOES earn the right to be called truth by proving itself with certainty. If this day ever comes, other ideas will be abandoned, but I don't see this day coming any time soon, so we really don't have much to worry about.
Having a good argument doesn't always mean we walk away with answers. In fact I'm most satisfied when we walk away with new, better questions. That's what we acomplish here by proving the arguments which support each other's beliefs wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telegraph
I believe in the Christian God, and Jesus Christ. I was born into a Catholic family, and events throughout my life have only reaffirmed my faith. I have a wonderful group of friends who have stuck together since Middle School, and they are all Christians now, but they didn't used to be. One was very much an atheist at one point, and wanted God to come face to face with him and tell him He was real. Another was a pagan, and another a Wiccan. Through the course of High School though, these diverse viewpoints and belief systems all came to Christianity.
People's beliefs do change when they find new more compelling evidence for a position they had not previously held. I myself started out a Christian, raised Lutheran, then when I discovered the evidence science offered me, finding it to be much more compelling than anything the church ever offered me, became atheist. Now, at a later stage in my development as a critical thinker, having been forced to reexamine my beliefs by the debates of those and with those far smarter than myself, have become agnostic.
Quote:
We've also seen loved ones survive sickness when they were supposed to die. One guy's father was supposed to not survive the night, and my friends all went to the hospital to pray for him. He survived. More recently, his grandpa was supposed to have surgery on the heart that no one has survived before. We prayed for him, and he lived. The Lord has come through for us in other ways, too. Unexpected funds when we were running low on money, difficult tasks made substantially easier, comfort in dark times...
While those are all things worthy of celebration, and would make one inclined to want to thank someone responsible, they don't prove the belief to be truth. If however everyone who prayed recovered, or everyone who prayed got what they needed to get by, there might be something to this line of reasoning, but far too often people who doctors say won't make it through the night, in spite of their prayers, don't make it through the night. Those who pray for recovery from serious injuries all their life, but still never recover. Those who fall on hard times, pray for a miracle, but remain poor, hungry or homeless. Many even die. Witnessing what we perceive as miracles may shape our beliefs, but can't give us knowledge of the truth unless we can also know they were miracles by understanding how they happened, and that there was no possible way it could have been without magic. This is unfortunately nearly impossible to prove, and all attempts at it throughout history have fallen short.
Quote:
... but nothing we've ever come across that science has put forth to be the answer to the origin of the universe or life has ever been convincing to us. That lightning striking the water theory? That space dust being in perfect order to become a life form somehow, just by accident? I am not convinced. And I am aware that the more some scientists have studied the beginning of the universe, the more they are led to believe that all of this couldn't have started on its own. I've even heard that Stephen Hawking thought this at one point.
It has been convincing to many. The big bang theory and the theory of evolution are widely accepted in spite of not having been proven beyond all doubt. It's not just you that hasn't been convinced that it's absolute truth though. Scientists haven't either. That's why they question their own ideas, call their findings theories instead of laws, keep looking into the matter rather than just saying, "Yeah, we already figured that out, let's move on to the next thing and never ask this question again".
Quote:
I won't say that I am super educated on the subject of all origin theories or science in general, but I know enough to know that they haven't found a satisfactory answer yet. All they're doing is taking "Not Creator" and putting it in the place of "Creator," with no great amount of proof that their "Not Creator" is even a viable answer. If they were honest, they would simply say that they don't know how everything was created yet. But there can't be a God/creator, right? Let's just squash that notion right now.
Those who claim to know that there is no creator are every bit as arrogant and foolish as those who claim they know there is. Neither position has earned the right to be called truth. Not yet. The honest answer IS I don't know. Nobody knows. We all believe something happened, but we don't know.
Quote:
I am well aware that there are likely holes in my argument, that anyone who's already posted in this thread (or hasn't) will likely not be swayed by anything I said.
Nothing personal, but as a critical thinker, I would almost go so far as to say it is my duty to not be swayed easily, and to question everything until there are no questions left to ask.
Quote:
These are simply the reasons why I believe what I believe. As human beings, we tend to take whatever information reaffirms our beliefs (or "mindsets") and ignore that which detracts from it. You're going to believe what you want to believe, regardless of what anyone says. Any change in your beliefs ("mindset") is going to come from change within you, and not from what anyone else tells you.
So... my final conclusion is that this debate is pointless.
That's a fine answer. I respect it, and you for it. You're not so arrogant as to claim that belief as absolute knowledge, acknowledging that things have simply led you to believe that rather than proving it to be the truth. But another thought for you to ponder, is it not entirely possible that what others tell you could cause that change within? I would in fact assume that what led me to reexamine my beliefs and change them was the input of those I considered to be smarter than myself. When someone offers me an answer, I am usually quick to dismiss it if they haven't proven it and demand proof before I give it a second thought, but when someone leaves me with a question, as scientists first did, and philosophers did later, that is when I am able to reshape my ideas. When someone is able to offer an argument which leaves a greater uncertainty in my beliefs, I am given these new questions to contemplate, and my new answers lead to a new, and usually 'better', stronger system of beliefs.
It is because of this that I am forced to disagree with your final conclusion. While arguments like this haven't directly given me any answers, they gave me the questions I needed to ask myself to come closer to the truth I seek. As long as one approaches them with an open mind, no debate is truly pointless.