I have wacth many debates and grew up in a religious family and i consider myself open to many possibilities if not all. When i wacth people debate god or religion I have relized that you can't get the other side to change there beliefs because both sides have strong points. I think ignorance plays a part of being bias to certian things that are attached to religion or athiest like evolution or the concepts of a higher power. I think both sides are right about certain things in there arguments which is my focus point when talking to a religious person(very few but maybe the most important). So every debate will end in stalemate with no minds being change most of the time in the conversation. Religious debates can be hard for me to wacth because i think both side are right about certain things. The progress will only come if you combine both philosophys if not the ignorance will live on forever or science will prove both sides to be right at some point, science can also prove athiest or religoin to be right but my opinion is that both sides are right!
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
@Zero
There is one big problem with your logic. Most atheists grew up in religious environments and have considerable knowledge of religions. In fact, I'd say that the average atheist knows a lot more than the average theist about religions, since our decisions to leave religion are generally the result of deep and careful thought. What do theists know about atheists? Practically nothing in my experience. Judging from what I've heard here and in other forums, they think we're evil, amoral, doomed and unhappy.
I don't think science will prove both sides to be right. There is nothing in religion that can be proven by science. I think science will eventually undermine religion and set us free. Unfortunately, some religions will react violently before they finally fade away.
Most people who has ever lived an that is living believe in a religion of some sort. There is multiple reasons for this but one of them is they have strong philosophy in certain areas in there belief system. I agree that most people decision to step away from religion is thought out, but to say religion is totally not useful and does not whole any creditablity is the ignorance that im talking about both sides are saying the other side is crazy, it makes sense to possibly merge ideas in fact i think each side holds a piece of the puzzle ,without all the pieces you will never get the full story. and the reason the debates go the way they do because we think we are disagreeing with pieces in different puzzels but i think both side holds different pieces to the same puzzle science will relized that i think.(i think you underestimate science, your looking at science in todays terms and the capabilitys it has today. The things we have done today threw science were claimed to be impossible that pattern will continue. with time science unlock more wonders about the world.)
@Zero
"Most people who has ever lived an that is living believe in a religion of some sort. "
I'd take issue with that statment, too. In my opinion, people are generally in religions because of where they happened to be born, not because of conscious choice, and they stay in religions because of inertia or coercion. If you're born in England, you're likely to be Christian, in Egypt a Muslim. Conditioning and coercion in childhood convinces people that they need a religion. Some religions carry that coercion through into adulthood, and in some places you can executed simjply for not believing any more. In most countries were people are free to choose, church attendance is going down.
"i think you underestimate science"
No I don't. In my lifetime I've watched science expand our knowledge by orders of magnitude in fields ranging from agriculture and weather forecasting to medicine and space travel. The pace of scientific progress is accelerating, and I expect even greater advances in the future. Each new piece of knowledge compresses the "god of the gaps" into a smaller space. Eventually it will disappear entirely.
I have seen bill nye, Christopher hicthens, richard Dawkins debate many religious scholars like craig lane and others both sides have strong arguments no opinions are changed it becomes a stalemate conversation were hours of debating and stating facts lead to nothing. I think sometimes they are saying the same thing but worded differently and i also think both sides have certain pieces to the puzzle. i do agree that religion is based on location that's part of it but they have strong points as well as giant holes just like athiest i think the gaps can be filled by one another.
"There is nothing in religion that can be proven by science."
This is were i think you underestimate science what we have discovered about the world so far is is highly advanced and proving or disproving religion/god would be nothing compared to what we have the potential to discover about the known universe. This pattern will continue with certain things that people say are impossible will keep being disproven like airplanes,cars telephones(not even talking about smartphones) skyscrapers were all impossible ideas at some point!
You can lead a fool to a mountain of evidence, but you can't make him accept the obvious. That no opinions are changed in such debates is actually the expected outcome. In science, where standards of evidence and accepted fact are established, arguments do get settled provided that there is enough information. A few die-hards may cling to their views until they die out, but a new generation of fresher, less dogmatic minds decide the issue. Thus, the basic idea of evolution became an accepted fact within the scientific community and debate today (over the fact of evolution) is really a backlash from conservative, religious people who just can't accept the truth.
Zero : "I have seen bill nye, Christopher hicthens, richard Dawkins debate many religious scholars like craig lane and others both sides have strong arguments no opinions are changed it becomes a stalemate conversation were hours of debating and stating facts lead to nothing."
I have watched Hitchen's debates. Everyone that argued against him received a sound thrashing.
@Zero
Atheism is NOT a philosophy! Atheism is nothing like religion. Religion is a manmade myth. Atheism is fact based.
Sure, all arguments between the two will not yield a conclusion. You can't argue with people that believe in myths, that don't think critically and don't deal in reality.
"..both sides are right!" Nonsense. There can't be an Abrahamic god and none. Atheism essentially means disbelief in god(s). That's all that non-believers have in common.
A debate won't usually change the minds of the participants, though I think some views can be modified at least. That can help and be considered progress. The aim of debate is not to convince the ignorant or the dim. It is to persuade the thoughtful and mindful.
The likes of Hitchens, Dawkins and co aren't only very successful from that point of view. Dawkins highlighted the use of Saudi textbooks and all the British school leavers of 16 years of age who "believed in" god and his "Creation" but largely "disbelieved in" evolution. If it had been left to religionists in the UK and to faith schools such nonsense would probably not be reduced and might have become more prevalent.
Debates like the ones you have seen aren't meant to create a radical shift in ideas. Its not like a staunch theist will see the light and suddenly transform into an atheist or vice versa.
These debates are meant to sway people on the cusp, unable to decide where they stand. To help people understand who they are and what they believe in.
Its not a stale mate. It never is. One side always wins however the winning side is decided by you based on your willingness to analyse the facts unbiased OR based on your presuppositions.
There are holes in science, there are holes in atheism for example string theory has holes and is not factual. My argument is that i think its possible for non traditional views on religion and god can be the missing pieces and can fill those holes. What i mean by non traditional views on religion and god is god can be a different word for energy or universe so when we are debateing each other and one person say god and the other says universe, or energy i think they are actually saying the same thing. But neither side can realize this and ego stops people to actually think critical about the the other side to say they both have some valid points.this is why i stand in the middle were i take certain concepts of something that can always exist from religion and consider it as a possibility and i take certain concepts of science like string theory and consider that as a possibility. The things you guys have stated has been said many of times before its not new information but how many times have you heard that science/atheism and religion/god can complement each other?
Well there is a problem with this. Energy has the dimension M*L2*T-2 (mass times length squared divided by time squared), and is measurable. God does not seem to have these attributes (from what believers tell me anyway); which makes me extremely skeptical of any attempt to equate them.
ZERO - "There are holes in science, there are holes in atheism for example string theory has holes and is not factual."
Th problem is you want to deal in absolutes.
None of us here have postulated science as an alternative to religion. (There is no comparison. Science works. Religion stalls work.)
If you get the impression that you must chose science v/s religion then you are mistaken. atheists do not propose science as an alternative to religion. We do not believe in religion and God. Which implies that whatever code another atheist wants to live by is their choice. People may be atheists and still believe evolution is incorrect, Some of us would definitely argue with them but they would still be atheists because they don't believe in God.
Science is not our religion. Most atheists like to talk science. maybe because we are more open to it considering we don't have to carry around dead weight of lazy obsolete ideas that religion provides. Thats it. There are plenty of atheists who don't like to talk, read or discuss science. They prefer art or photography.
Yes science has holes. There is definitely a lack of our understanding in many or most of our fields of study. But one thing every atheist will agree on is that NEITHER RELIGION NOR GOD IS EVER THE ANSWER.
So if you feel that you want to chose science as an alternative to religion then you are wasting your time. Religion cannot be compared to science.
Science in my opinion is inquiry into nature by man to understand the truths of life. Religion is the Politics of money and Power.
@Charvak. I'd be interested to get your thoughts on something... You stated that "Religion is the politics of money and power". As such, what money or power would have motivated first century Christians to willingly go to their deaths for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus? Thanks in advance for your response.
@ Freeslave
"willingly go to their deaths for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus"
That's a load of tripe. Lovely stores made up to enhance the religion.
First Century Christians were not persecuted, in fact, as jews they were given special privileges until approx 60CE when they were blamed for the Fire of Rome. Even then it was not their christianity that got them persecuted it was their refusal to integrate with other religions and acknowledge the Emperor as a god. In addition their habits of cannibalism (the communion) and baby sacrifice (genital mutilation aka circumcision) were considered disgusting by the general populace.
Christians were blamed for the Fire and subsequent terrorism and were hunted down as criminals. The persecution was short lived in the First Century and most christian sects had temples in major population centres including Rome. They did not "go willingly to their deaths" but were, in the main forcibly arrested.
Their privileges were (jewish and jewish christians) were restored soon after the sack of Jerusalem in 70CE and their religion continued its expansion until the Pauline sect was adopted as the official religion of Rome in the early 4th Century CE. You have been fed a pack of propaganda by the Catholic church ...do some research and never believe what a clergyman tells you. They either want to get in your pants, your wallet or your mind.
@Old man shouts:
You may have been misinformed. Historians are overwhelmingly in agreement that Christians by the thousands went to their deaths in the first century A.D. at the hands of the Roman government. History not only bears out accounts of individual cases of such martyrdom, but group events as well. These historical facts have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of any church/religion, etc. All Christians had to do to be spared was to deny the resurrection of Jesus, or accept the emperor as a god. Refusing to do either, they were slaughtered by the profligate thousands. This is extremely well documented. Your take on what happened thereafter is also a bit inconsistent with accepted history, but that is another matter which does not pertain herein. While I can appreciate your zeal to promote a certain agenda, we should not feel it necessary to present revisionist historical narratives to do so. The facts are sufficient to lead us to correct conclusions, regardless of their convenience.
@ Freeslave
Nope, theologists are in agreement that christians "in their thousands" were tortured etc in the first century. In fact Tacitus mentions a group of them being torn apart by dogs as punishment for the Great Fire of Rome about 60CE.
When the special dispensation for the jews was revoked for some years practising christian jews (and actual jews) were, indeed, rounded up and either fed to the arena where they supplied very poor entertainment, You should do some reading and see why a) the Jews were accorded special dispensations re the Emperor, b) the aftermath of the sack of Jerusalem and the fate of both jews and christianised jews alike. There are records of small groups of christians being put to death all over the Empire for various offences but the book of Martyrs and the "eye witness" accounts were much later 2nd and 3rd and 3rd Century CE fabrications over the years after fire 60CE.
You are quite right, all any person had to do was to acknowledge the Emperor as god on his designated feast days and perform an act of atonement or similar to avoid punishments (not always death). That was the dispensation granted to the jews ( Not to acknowledge Caesar as such)and so to the jewish christians ( note that Rome saw christianity as predominantly jewish until the 3rd century and they enjoyed the same immuniities as their jewish brethren) until the privileges were revoked and then reinstated at the tail end of the 1st century. The acknowledgement of the Emperor as god was mandatory for all followers of all religions ...except where dispensation was granted. There was nothing special about the treatment of christians, jews and others who did not acknowledge the absolute rule of Rome.They were all killed by various means.
So, please. do some actual reading without your bible glasses. I have no agenda, unlike yourself. I look for facts supported by more evidence.
There were jews and christians from all sorts of sects murdered over the years, in fact, the biggest killer of christians is the Pauline Church itself after establishment in the 4th Century CE.
@Old man shouts:
You may have been misinformed. Historians are overwhelmingly in agreement that Christians by the thousands went to their deaths in the first century A.D. at the hands of the Roman government. History not only bears out accounts of individual cases of such martyrdom, but group events as well. These historical facts have absolutely nothing to do with the teachings of any church/religion, etc. All Christians had to do to be spared was to deny the resurrection of Jesus, or accept the emperor as a god. Refusing to do either, they were slaughtered by the profligate thousands. This is extremely well documented. Your take on what happened thereafter is also a bit inconsistent with accepted history, but that is another matter which does not pertain herein. While I can appreciate your zeal to promote a certain agenda, we should not feel it necessary to present revisionist historical narratives to do so. The facts are sufficient to lead us to correct conclusions, regardless of their convenience.
"If you get the impression that you must chose science v/s religion then you are mistaken. "
That is exactly what I am trying to explain that its not science vs religion and they can complement each other with philosophy of existence.I never said science was athiest religion but science is were athiest look for explanation about our lives and why we are here and thats what athiest have in common with religious people they look for answers threw science and religion is were religious people look for answers.
"Well there is a problem with this. Energy has the dimension M*L2*T-2 (mass times length squared divided by time squared), and is measurable."
Nyarlathotep
There is actually a energy that is not measurable which is called dark matter its totally rogue energy and connot be explained scientists just knows its there it also cannot be destroyed or created.but anyway you cant tell a person what there definition of god is, god can be the type of energy you have explained. So like i have said when person says god and the other person says energy or universe they can be used as the same meaning to describe something but just different words and in fact the words is reason people are turn off of what they are actually saying in the conversation which causes people to stop listening.
Zero: "There is actually a energy that is not measurable which is called dark matter its totally rogue energy and connot be explained scientists just knows its there it also cannot be destroyed or created.but anyway you cant tell a person what there definition of god is, god can be the type of energy you have explained. So like i have said when person says god and the other person says energy or universe they can be used as the same meaning to describe something but just different words and in fact the words is reason people are turn off of what they are actually saying in the conversation which causes people to stop listening."
1. When little is known about something - like dark energy - it sets in motion the next waves of scientific discovery. Inserting god into the unknown is unnecessary. Some day we will know more about dark energy. I doubt if scientists will consider dark energy rogue.
2. Science is objective. It is neither atheistic or religious. Francis Collins is a believer and leads the human genome project. Some scientists are atheists.
3.One thing is for sure, as we learn more and more from science gods become less and less necessary. All scientific knowledge to date proves that the physical universe operates according to natural laws. No supernatural events have been detected.
@chimp3 - You stated that "dark matter" is an energy that is not measurable. You also stated that "all scientific knowledge to date proves that hte physical universe operates according to natural laws." while dark matter seems to violate those laws.
Since it is: A. Not measurable, B. Violates known scientific laws, C. Is not subject to proper observation in accordance with accepted scientific method, then how can it be said to be scientific?
Science is a process of learning and understanding. Presently, we have not got a handle on dark matter because it is so elusive. But eventually we will understand what dark matter is.
When a new field (for example radiation) opens up, we learn about it. Dark matter is like that, it is an unexplored realm of science. Present theories have difficulty is explaining or even fitting in dark matter. But science is not inflexible, science is about learning what is on the other side of the door.
Dark matter is measurable (and was first measured in the 1970's). The mystery about dark matter is no one knows for sure what it is made out of. That being said: no one know for what electrons, quarks, or photons are made out of either.
You have not resolved the problem: All energy has the dimensions of M*L2*T-2; that is definitional. If god is energy like you say that means he must have those dimensions, which is laughable.
God can very well have those dimensions, the word god is just a word what your definition of god is subjective to your opinion on what the word god means. I met many of people who believe athiest are devil worshipers which is a subjective opinion but is not the actual truth. You must first realize that the word god is just a word and can mean multiple things to understand that the words god, energy, and universe can have the same meaning.for example people say god always existed i heard the same theorys for the universe, and energy. But this is my point right here people have bias opinion on this topic and these conversations are not productive because of ego
Yeah; I really doubt you are going to get very many people (theist or atheists for that matter) to agree that god is a scalar quantity.
This is my point we disagree but in reality we agree but are using different words, we cant agree that the word game can mean multiple things.it could be a movie, a person name, or a sport. So when person says god they are not always talking about the man in the sky in heaven looking down on us picking who goes to hell who created us, thats what i been trying to get you to realize.
I'll try one last time. Energy is a precisely defined concept. If you equate god and energy you are telling us that god meets this precise definition of energy; turning god into just a scalar and a unit (for example: 15.3 joules). Now I'm no expert on god; but that sure as hell don't sound anything like the god stories I hear believers relate everyday of my life. If you want to equate god with some other concept, you should choose something with a much less rigid definition so you don't end up with this shoe horn problem.
I have also explained that the universe can be represented as god as well they are all saying the same thing god,energy and universe
the definition of dark matter is a unidentified type of energy so idk what they did in 1970 but its still unidentified and makes up 27% of the universe and we know very little about it. But there are multiple types of energy and i dont think every type of energy fits in that definition i think its likely that there are types of energy that we havent been exposed to and never knew existed we are still in the seconds on the cosmic year of knowledge that will be unlocked in the future.
i find that what you are saying is a contradiction because according to the rules of logic you can`t have both competing ideas to be right.either there is a god or there is a naturalistic explanation for life.its either one or the other not both.the arguments state that the universe came into existence by a so called God, who 13.8 billion years ago created the big bang a singularity according to hubble the universe is expanding george lamartaire a belgian priest discovered the universe expanding and the waves, the biblical account says in the book of genesis that in the beginning GOD. which is the god of the gaps theory, you can`t have the god gap theory, its just ignorance to say in the beginning god, it states nothing, life and existence is more complex then that.
skeptical christian - you obviously aren't reading what i am explaining. Athiest and religious views are both right and wrong, nethier of them are 100% accurate and they are not absolute. They both have some valid points and strong arguments and also have giant holes in there philosophy and weak ideology. This is not a contradiction because i am not saying that they both are 100% right i am saying that they both have certain things in there philosophy that is right
I have also explained that the words god,universe, and energy they can mean the same thing. For example my mother believes god and energy is the same thing and what we agree on is energy and that is a fact and proves that those 3 words can mean the same thing so when we are having conversation and one person say god and the other person says energy or universe they can be saying the same thing.
"i am saying that they both have certain things in there (sic) philosophy that is right"
Atheism has no philosophy!
Pages