Would there be any appetite for a Debate on Religion or God's Existence?

Wacker

Hi folks, I hope you're all well.

As some of you may have noticed, I posted this thread in the Atheism and Agnosticism forum:

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=63532537#post63532537

Basically, I'd love to see Boards.ie make greater use of the Debate forum, and I'd quite like to see a debate hosted there about God's existence or some other aspect of religion. As you can see, there is a certain amount of interest amongst the Atheist and Agnostic posters. If I were to try and pursue this further, would there be posters here similarly prepared to step up?

Now let me get one thing out of the way: I am an atheist myself, and thus I imagine a lot of posters here might think I'm just trying to goad some of you into a verbal beating or something. Honestly, that is the last thing I want. I was a Yes voter in both Lisbon referendums, and yet I loved the Lisbon debate which, the No side clearly won. Secondly, I'd challenge anyone to go through my post history and find me slinging mud at your beliefs. That ain't me babe.

So how 'bout it? If there were interest in any debate whatsoever, we could then try hammer out a motion.

Thanks.

W.

Fanny Cradock

Personally, I don't see much point if the topic was about proving God's existence. Attempting to convince people of this over an internet forum is an unenviable task, especially if debate can not accurately convey the experiential nature of faith in Jesus.

I also don't like the notion that someone tasks themselves with proving God's existence in a 30 minute talk or whatever - it seems like an inadequate response to a huge and very personal journey. I've largely given up on watching "Atheists Vs Theists" style debates because it is invariably the best showman or most likeable guy (which is not always the same as the person who delivers the best argued case) who is declared the winner.

But I would look on with interest as people duke it out!

Wacker

Fanny, might I be bold enough to suggest that there is no chance of this getting off the ground without you on board? Maybe I'm wrong though.

I can well understand a reluctance to debate on the motion of 'God is a Superstition' or the like, but what about a motion such as 'The Decline of Religion in the Western World is to be Lamented' or the like?

herbiemcc

I'm making a tentative foray into this field. My appetite for debate varies as some days it seems totally futile to try to reach any sort of common ground between the two factions and other days it seems a worthy pursuit as there are so many millions of people who believe hundreds (?) of religions. I am currently enjoying a great life and have no axe to grind/agenda to push. The two ideas are pretty much opposite but to me one seems honest, rational and exciting in its potential and the other 'seems to be a 'finished article', closed, shut-up-and-follow affair. I know which one attracts me. I also find the 'reaching out' patience of most christians I've met to expire at about question three which doesn't really help. Thanks

antiskeptic

Wacker wrote: »

I can well understand a reluctance to debate on the motion of 'God is a Superstition' or the like, but what about a motion such as 'The Decline of Religion in the Western World is to be Lamented' or the like?

That's not much of a motion. Given that the average Christian here considers 'Religion' to be broken down into the componants:

Re: (concerning, having to do with)

Legion: (the name given to the demonic in the account of Jesus dealing with a possessed man)

..the decline of Religion in the Western World is to be celebrated. We'd be better off joining the atheists for a celebratory drink down the pub on this one - not in the debate forum

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's not much of a motion. Given that the average Christian here considers 'Religion' to be broken down into the componants:

Re: (concerning, having to do with)

Legion: (the name given to the demonic in the account of Jesus dealing with a possessed man)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Etymology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pun

ah ... wait .. what? :pac:

Fanny Cradock

Wacker wrote: »

Fanny, might I be bold enough to suggest that there is no chance of this getting off the ground without you on board? Maybe I'm wrong though.

I can well understand a reluctance to debate on the motion of 'God is a Superstition' or the like, but what about a motion such as 'The Decline of Religion in the Western World is to be Lamented' or the like?

Well, I'm not sure about that.

I don't mean to torpedo your suggestion. Despite my reservations, it might be quite fruitful if a suitable topic was debated and opponents were fairly matched.

Wacker

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, I'm not sure about that.

I don't mean to torpedo your suggestion. Despite my reservations, it might be quite fruitful if a suitable topic was debated and opponents were fairly matched.

Well how about the motion I suggested earlier: The Decline of Religion in the Western World is to be Lamented. Would four posters here be prepared to debate this motion with four regulars from across the way?

BrianCalgary

It wouldn't work.


Atheist: there is no God
Theist: prove it.
Atheist: I dont have to, its up to you to prove it.
Theist: Heres my prove.
Atheist; It's unacceptable because it is not verifiable.

Wacker

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It wouldn't work.


Atheist: there is no God
Theist: prove it.
Atheist: I dont have to, its up to you to prove it.
Theist: Heres my prove.
Atheist; It's unacceptable because it is not verifiable.

I realize our posts overlapped, but how about the motion I suggested above?

PDN

Wacker wrote: »

Well how about the motion I suggested earlier: The Decline of Religion in the Western World is to be Lamented. Would four posters here be prepared to debate this motion with four regulars from across the way?

I would be happy to debate against the proposed motion.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It wouldn't work.


Atheist: there is no God
Theist: prove it.
Atheist: I dont have to, its up to you to prove it.
Theist: Heres my prove.
Atheist; It's unacceptable because it is not verifiable.

I would be more than happy to put forward the verifiable evidence in support of the idea that religious supernatural concepts are the product of the human mind and human evolution, rather than representative of real things, evidence that leads a lot of people to the position of atheism in my experience.

I would also be more than happy to review and discuss the "proof" you guys have for the existence of God, though being verifiable is a requirement that we aren't going to just drop because you guys have trouble producing it.

Equally I would be happy to explain the rational behind having these standards on evidence, verification and reproduction in the first place (its not just to wind theists up :P) and why it is important for the study of the natural world.

Sam Vimes

BrianCalgary wrote: »

It wouldn't work.


Atheist: there is no God
Theist: prove it.
Atheist: I dont have to, its up to you to prove it.
Theist: Heres my prove.
Atheist; It's unacceptable because it is not verifiable.

And there of course is why the debates never go anywhere:

1. Very very few atheists state that there is no god. What's mostly debated is straw men rather than the actual positions people hold

2. If something is unverifiable it's not proof, it's a baseless assertion. The standard of evidence for atheists is very different to that of believers. That's only where their own beliefs are concerned of course, in other areas the standards are roughly the same.

Baggio

its a pointless debate---

for those who believe - no explanation is nessesary

for those who dont - no explanation will suffice

Sam Vimes

Baggio wrote: »

its a pointless debate---

for those who believe - no explanation is nessesary

for those who dont - no explanation will suffice

well that's not exactly true. Firstly the point is not to change the minds of the people who are debating, it's to change the minds of the audience, who may not have thought about it much.

Also, I think it's very unfair to say no explanation will suffice. Just because believers have yet to give me an explanation doesn't mean that I won't accept any explanation. One thing that would convince me would be if whenever someone prayed for an amputee's arm to regrow it happened instantly but the reality is that as far as I can see believers only ever pray for things that could have happened anyway and they happen with pretty much the same frequency as would be expected by probability alone. That's not convincing but that's not a reflection on me, a suggestion that I won't accept any explanation, it's a reflection of the weakness of the explanation being given.

Baggio

personally i find it a great excuse for a lot of hot air and self indulgiant point scoring...i'd rather watch paint dry or a dire straits concert..ughhhhh

MrPudding

Baggio wrote: »

...i'd rather watch paint dry or a dire straits concert..ughhhhh

Luckily, if the debate happens, and I hope it does, no one will force you to read it. God bless free will.

MrP

Baggio

thanx pudding i'll gladly sleep through that hahah ...got any dire strates cd's on ya?

MrPudding

Baggio wrote: »

thanx pudding i'll gladly sleep through that hahah ...got any dire strates cd's on ya?

Sorry, trying to cut down to be honest...

MrP

PDN

Sam Vimes wrote: »

well that's not exactly true. Firstly the point is not to change the minds of the people who are debating, it's to change the minds of the audience, who may not have thought about it much.

Also, I think it's very unfair to say no explanation will suffice. Just because believers have yet to give me an explanation doesn't mean that I won't accept any explanation. One thing that would convince me would be if whenever someone prayed for an amputee's arm to regrow it happened instantly but the reality is that as far as I can see believers only ever pray for things that could have happened anyway and they happen with pretty much the same frequency as would be expected by probability alone. That's not convincing but that's not a reflection on me, a suggestion that I won't accept any explanation, it's a reflection of the weakness of the explanation being given.

Moderator's Note.

While such a debate may indeed take place on the debate forum, and while it is in order to discuss whether such a debate should occur, posters should desist from trying to rehearse their arguments in this thread, or from using this thread as a Trojan Horse to sneak in their gripes with Christianity.

It would be a shame to have to lock this thread because the usual suspects can't behave themselves.

Zombrex

Baggio wrote: »

personally i find it a great excuse for a lot of hot air and self indulgiant point scoring...i'd rather watch paint dry or a dire straits concert..ughhhhh

Isn't point scoring the whole point of a debate?






.. I'll get my coat ... :P

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I would be more than happy to put forward the verifiable evidence in support of the idea that religious supernatural concepts are the product of the human mind and human evolution, rather than representative of real things, evidence that leads a lot of people to the position of atheism in my experience.

I would love to hear that presentation.

If the supernatural doesn't exist and if supernatural concepts are the product of the human mind, then that means that every culture on earth would have started out with varying and differing concepts of the so called supernatural. Don Richardson in his book 'Eternity in their hearts' has done an extensive study in that area which would suggest that the complete opposite is true, he demonstrates through compelling stories from many different cultures how the concept of a supreme God has existed for centuries in hundreds of cultures throughout the world. So how could the same supernatural concept (One Supreme God) evolve within different cultural groups in different parts of the world under completely different environmental and cultural circumstances?

I know this is not for this thread but please let me know when you do your presentation as I would love to read it in light of what Don Richardson's study has revealed about ancient human cultures.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

I would love to hear that presentation.

I'm glad

Soul Winner wrote: »

If the supernatural doesn't exist and if supernatural concepts are the product of the human mind, then that means that every culture on earth would have started out with varying and differing concepts of the so called supernatural.

Why?

If supernatural concepts are the product of the evolution of the human mind, and all humans are very closely related to each other (100,000 years ago there were only 4,000 to 15,000 humans alive on Earth), why would they have developed varying and differing concepts?

Soul Winner wrote: »

he demonstrates through compelling stories from many different cultures how the concept of a supreme God has existed for centuries in hundreds of cultures throughout the world.

Well yeah, that is sort of the point.

These are universal concepts, produce by the human brain. We can study them as such. Christians don't have a brain vastly different to Hindus or Native Americans.

We know in fact left to their own devices children will produce "gods" from their own imaginations and assign the same properties to them that are common throughout world religions, if the concepts are not implanted in them first by parents.

Soul Winner wrote: »

So how could the same supernatural concept (One Supreme God) evolve within different cultural groups in different parts of the world under completely different environmental and cultural circumstances?

Because we are all human and humans are very closely related to each other. These concepts are the product of the human mind, and the human mind is pretty much the same across the species.

It is the same as language, different world languages may be structurally different but the vast majority of them work on the same basic principles because the vast majority of humans have evolved the same basic mental processes for structuring language.

I would be happy to discuss this further in another thread.

lalee17

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I also don't like the notion that someone tasks themselves with proving God's existence

Excuse me, but is that not exactly what Christian missionaries do?

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm glad


Why?

If supernatural concepts are the product of the evolution of the human mind, and all humans are very closely related to each other (100,000 years ago there were only 4,000 to 15,000 humans alive on Earth), why would they have developed varying and differing concepts?


Well yeah, that is sort of the point.

These are universal concepts, produce by the human brain. We can study them as such. Christians don't have a brain vastly different to Hindus or Native Americans.

We know in fact left to their own devices children will produce "gods" from their own imaginations and assign the same properties to them that are common throughout world religions, if the concepts are not implanted in them first by parents.



Because we are all human and humans are very closely related to each other. These concepts are the product of the human mind, and the human mind is pretty much the same across the species.

It is the same as language, different world languages may be structurally different but the vast majority of them work on the same basic principles because the vast majority of humans have evolved the same basic mental processes for structuring language.

I would be happy to discuss this further in another thread.

OK moved to here

PDN

lalee17 wrote: »

Excuse me, but is that not exactly what Christian missionaries do?

No. Christian missionaries proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ. They also frequently engage in charitable work. Very rarely do they attempt to prove God's existence.

MatthewVII

I'd love to watch this debate. There should be a limit of a certain number of posts and if the debate still rages, J_C should be let loose on it.

Kinda like the crystal maze, wait too long for the crystal and be trapped banging on a door for eternity

Wacker

Ahh! Please, can you all stop following what I'm sure is an intrinsic instinct (is the word 'intrinsic' a derivative of 'instinct'? Actually, answer this question!) at this point? I read as fare as post #24, (Soul Winner's post), which Wicknight gave a fairly substantive reply to, and I'm now about ready to despair. I'm a man of real simple pleasures; I just want to get a debate together, and none of this is helping!
Just answe this question for me: if the motion were to be the one I already suggested (The decline of religion in the western world is to be lamented), could I get people to propose this motion?

Please?! No ulterior motives here, honest!

PDN

Wacker wrote: »

is the word 'intrinsic' a derivative of 'instinct'?

No.

Intrinsic is derived from the Latin intra (within) and secus (alongside, or following - as in sequence). Hence intrinsic means "following on logically from what is within".

Instinct comes from in and stinguere (to prick or to sting). Hence instinct means "something that pricks you from the inside to goad you to action".

Your determination to have stereotypical atheists opposing the motion and stereotypical theists proposing it will guarantee a debate that is based more on instinct than intrinsic logic. While such polarisation might make an interesting bloodsport, it is likely to produce more heat than light.

If you really want something more enlightened then why not get two of each on either side. I have met plenty of fair-minded atheists (although admittedly they are scarce on these boards) who can see much that is positive in religious culture and heritage, and there should be no difficulty finding a couple of Christian secularists.