The Debate on Religion?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

I have always understood that one of the reasons that a person discusses a certain subject with a person who is completely opposed to the viewpoints of the original person is because both parties involved want to understand how the other party thinks and why.

I do not believe the same can be said for the majority of religious discussions that take place here because with the majority of people making these discussions the fervor (which occasionally becomes a hatred) that they display to those that oppose them suggests closed-mindedness. I also believe that the topic is often closed-minded in its very nature. It strikes me that very few people broach the topic of religion with a sense of neutrality to the same, the majority of those who choose to pursue the topic are either definitely religious, or definitely not religious.

As a result of those items, it strikes me that the idea behind the religious debates is to prove one or more people wrong, but that is (at least as of right now) not entirely possible. If there was any absolute, concrete or irrefutable proof that there is or is not a God, and that proof were to surface, one side would win, one side would lose and the debate would end. Considering that this topic has been debated for centuries and no universally accepted conclusion has been attained, the debate must be had largely for one side to try to sway the opinions of the other side.

I can certainly understand this from the perspective of those who are religious because, in many religions, it is a matter of doctrine that one should, “Spread the word,” of God or Allah or whatever the case may be.

The first thing that I do not understand is why athiests pursue the topic with equal, if not greater, fervor than those who are admittedly religious. What does an athiest gain from arguing, even proving, that there is not a god of any kind, what possible motive can there be to want to take a belief away from someone rather than instill a belief in that person? I’m sure there are a few athiests who choose not to believe in a god because they are worried about the consequences if there is a god, but I am equally sure most athiests legitimately do not believe in god.

Another thing is, with the whole Heaven/Hell eternal salvation or torment thing, the Christians and other religious people have something at stake, a belief in something greater than themselves, a reason to follow a moral code of conduct. The athiests on the other hand belief that they have nothing to lose (in most cases) as there will be no eternal judgment cast upon them.

Ultimately, the odds of a friend or family member (at least in my experience) changing an individual’s religious beliefs by way of debate are very low, so what are the odds of changing someone’s mind when the person whose mind you are trying to change has no personal stake in your friendship?

I mean, a little bit of friendly debate is definitely a good thing, as is occasionally having your values checked and having to defend them, but I have seen things become positively hateful.

My question is, why have the debate when you know that there (at least at this point) is no absolute proof one way or another and you also know that you are not going to change any minds at the particular venue where you are having the debate?

2

Because many people don’t debate philosophy to improve themselves or their ideas, but to show off how clever they are.

Basically, philosophy is that attention seeking kid who climbs trees and yells ‘look at meeeeeee!’ as he jumps out of them, except now he’s insulting people so he can get a bigger power rush :stuck_out_tongue:

Honestly? When people are passionate about ideas expect them to want to convince you, but don’t expect them to change. Emotional attachment to unreal things (be it the ideas in your head or the God in the Sky) can be powerful, and when two people like that meet, expect sparks to fly.

There are some debates that go on where the intricacies of each others viewpoints and your own are explored in the debate, I’ve had a few with one of my old philosophy lecturers, controlled by rules of profound respect (plus he had highly animated eyebrows that could cow me into submission).

3

I think it has more to do with the desire to share newly acquired knowledge with one another. It’s one of the main things that separates us from other animals: the desire to teach.

And when you come across something as profound and life changing as conversion, one way or the other, I think the need to share your beliefs with others becomes almost urgent.

Of course, this urgency for me has subsided when I realized that it was not only futile in most cases to convert theists, but also not needed. I don’t care what people believe, as long as they don’t try to convince me of their beliefs. I, of course, will do the same, unless discussing it on a philosophy forum, or if the subject is raised for discussion.

One of the more pressing matters, however, is how religious belief affects legislation. I think this adds to the urgency of atheists to try and reason and convert religious thinkers. As I mentioned previously, it wouldn’t matter if everybody kept their opinions to themselves, but when one side pushes, the other pushes back.

4

I believe that Phoebus brought up some interesting points to ponder, but I would at the same time be hesitant to subscribe to the belief that we are just out to prove something to other people and seek attention. I believe that Phoebus may have pointed out the motivation of a few of the athiests and thiests that seek to debate their viewpoints, but I believe that the reasons stated by dorkydood are more reflective of the majority.

To the first paragraph above, I believe that many religious people (for whatever reason) do not believe that it is as futile to convert an athiest, but I can’t be sure. I have seen it both ways, though. I have seen discussions started by theists and partaken in only by theists until an athiest pops in and starts attacking those who were originally in the discussion. In the same fashion I have seen theists but-in on discussions had by atheists where they were discussing what they believe to be the irrationality of a belief in god (s) and the theist would very kindly explain to them that unless they change their ways their soul is destined for eternal damnation.

An exercise in futility, you said it all right there, so my question is, why?

You answered that with your second paragraph, I failed to consider the affect that religion has on a good deal of legislation. The aspect of that which I find intriguing is that the constitution calls for a seperation of church and state (the athiest viewpoint being that this rarely happens) although some would argue that legislation is reflective only of the constituency from which the vote for the legislation is made. Now, if you have a constituency which reflects that the majority of the voters uphold traditional religious values, then you have religious legislation.

Although when it comes to items like allowing gay marriage I can see where the problem would be. In most constituencies had the law not already defined what constitutes marriage (in which event gay marriage would then start of as being legal) then the religious majority would vote to ban it anyway.

5

I’ll tell you why I do it, it’s to proselytize (in the generic sense, “To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another”) my point of view–which is the pursuit of Truth. How can that be wrong as a direction.

But what does that mean? Follow proven knowledge or that which is favored by a high degree of evidence, all with an open mind; and to admit what we don’t know.

Whatever you know, believe or want to believe, Truth is, or should be, your God.

Put another way, I proselytize for rationality (reason guiding emotion, and emotion driving reason) and the benefits for us all that it provides.

6

I understand that, conversion, and I think you put what you said very well. Although, my counter to that is that a person often attempts proselytization (Is that a word?) without achieving the desired result. To me it is like playing the pick 3 lottery, you can play something like, “1-4-6,” every day of your life knowing that it ultimately should hit, (Though the results of previous drawings have no bearing on future drawings) it may hit the first day, the seventeenth day, the 1,897th day, maybe never. When it finally does hit, the question is how much have you spent to win what you have won, are you upside-down?

That is all I mean, I just don’t see the percentage in it all, but you did say that you pursue conversations with an open-mind, so I think my original query was meant more for those who can in no way be swayed from the beliefs that they hold.

7

The problem, as I see it, comes from those who have discovered self-substantiating beliefs; and, since these satisfy them, conclude, sometimes with caring motives, that these beliefs should be everyones. I do believe, however, that there is more honesty here than in the philosophy forum where one often gets sound bites or one-sentence denials instead of considered thought.

8

Excellent point, I suppose the religious people often try to convice the athiests they are right, “for their own good,” or at least that’s what they think.

What about the athiests debating their standpoint with equal (or sometimes greater) fervor?

9

Everyone argues for their own good.

Excited arguers, are simply excited people.
You could have been talking about football, if that were an interest of there’s, and they would have gotten excited.

People are as people do, it’s not what they do that makes the, “do”. It’s the people.

10

I agree with you there, excited people do make excited arguers.

Football is a much different example than religion, though, here are just two reasons why:

1.) Facts and Figures:

God exists vs. God doesn’t exist:

No absolute facts that verify either side’s argument.

The Detroit Lions suck vs. Detroit Lions Fan.

Fact is, the Lions are 0-12, they most assuredly suck.

2.) Verifiable Existence:

Even if the Lions are terrible, the Lions do exist, the Lions fans can be pleased with the fact that they have a team that definitely exists. Sure, the Oklahoma Sooners or Alabama Crimson Tide may be able to give them a run for their money in a game, but they exist nonetheless.

On the other hand, the fervor and passion that goes along with either thiesm or athiesm is possibly as strong as an individual’s support for a favorite team, but you would be equally hard-pressed to debate an individual into switching their favorite team, would you not?

11

Yeah, it was just the point that they would even argue about that.

You might as well have them begin a discussion about color as a reality if they actually gave a damn about that.

Keep in mind that Jefferson was a hot head like many folks around here and he was a very influential person with extremely strong personal beliefs.
So, it’s not like this is new, and in fact in past era’s it was admired and the “objective” method of debating was considered a weakness.
A good man was a man with strong conviction and willing to fight a man for them.
It’s still as unpleasant as it has always been…been…been…been…sheesh, has man ever not fought over a thought or belief?

Hell, the cradle of civilization has the longest running record of fighting…and they are STILL fighting…over religion.

:wink:
My cat and the tuna factory man…my cat and the tuna factory. :handgestures-thumbup:

12

I understand exactly what you mean, but you misunderstand my initial question, I believe.

I already know the what, and the who, and I already know about some characters in history, what I want to know is the, “Why?” I mean, if a theist or an athiest, (and we have already come to a reasonable conclusion about the thiests) so why would an athiest debate a debate, fight a mental battle, where the probability of convincing your opposition of your rightness and getting them to conform to your standards of belief is so ridiculously low? It just seems like a waste of time.

13

Actually there are plenty of conversions to atheism… I don’t think they convert to atheism because of some devinely imposed strong inner feeling about atheism… so my guess is it has something to do with becoming familar with arguments, facts and proper reasoning…

Since theists are often hell bent on converting people… it seems only fair that we provide people with the arguments, facts and critical thinking skills we think refute their various claims. And let people make an informed decision… as opposed to simply being caught unprepared and duped into adopting some bogus dogma…

14

I don’t think that there is anything unfair about it, all is fair in love, war and conversation.

Then again, I am not talking about the athiest that counter-attacks when confronted by Christians who are trying to convert him/her. And I am not talking about the thiests who counter-attack when an athiest verbally attacks or provokes a debate with them. When I ask why, I am specifically referring to the athiests that go out of their way to enter a conversation (being partaken in by nobody (to that point) but theists) and start trying to instigate a debate or outright argument.

I have my answer for the Christians, they think they are doing it, “For their own good,” could it be the same with the athiests, might they think they are doing thiests a favor?

15

Maybe… In a way… the flaw here is to identify people by a belief they hold… as if to lay down the groundwork to claim that If i say theism is utterly idiotic… i’ve somehow called all theists idiotic… and that they were personally insulted because I said an idea was stupid…

I think the recent dawkins, hitchens, harris type aggressors are motivated by the fear of what might happen if the majority of people have their actions and morality determined on the basis of some holy text or another… and I’m rather sympathetic to their concerns.

From my point of view I think better education is a good start. It’s hard to think critically and not find a sea of flaws in both theistic philosophy and the holy texts themselves… but people are not likely to apply critical thinking to what they have been taught to consider sacred… and so I would hasten to add that people need to be encuraged to question things… to think critically… and given the freedom to come to any conclusion they find defensible on thier own without fear of being rejected by their community, relatives or friends… And I think most religious communities tend to be rather volitile when it comes to apostasy.

For example, a choice between family and friends or atheism is no choice at all… and if that’s the choice people are given within a religous community or from within the tenets of their dogma… than that’s a serious problem and needs to be faught tooth and nail… not just by atheists… but by anyone who wishes people to have the freedom of choice.

If nothing else than atheists ought to continue the strugle to show that the alternative to religious dogma is not devil worship… and that converting out of such superstition in no way leaves you in bad company or short on justification or morality. And in fact that you may find such a view more rewarding and better grounded.

We don’t say this to “theists”… we say this to people…

16

I’m in league with Mad Man here Pav.

I believe that the largest arguments come from people refusing to admit or give way to a line of reason at some point in the conversation.
The instigation is typically one that is started pompously (meaning, holding one’s importance because one believes they bear importance).

Any aggressively started conversation is started in an attempt to shock open the subject and grab attention.
If you are grabbing attention, then you are looking for mass reading (here at least).
If you are looking for mass reading, then you are looking to spark controversy of varying sides.
If you are looking to spark controversy, then you are looking to reveal something.

If you are atheist then you are a person who denies the existence of divine, or supreme beings.
If you are an atheist on ILP, then you are also replacing religion with philosophy as a construct for insight entirely.
If you believe that the divine do not exist, and seek insight through deduction, then obscurity through faith is the opposite of your ambition.
If obscurity through faith is the opposition of your ambition, then it stand in the way of truth.
If it stands in the way of truth, then it is a distraction.

Therefore, you answer is:
An atheist that starts an argument directed to go after Christianity, or any religion, is instigated by the constant fact that the grounds of philosophy are viewed as the sacred safe haven away from the ambiguous nature of religion while pursuing the holy truth through the ritual of logic and reason, and any time that a blaspheming religious believer attempts to reason or logic evidence based on personal faith and theology, the atheist feels that the sacred house of reason and logic has been greatly defiled.

See, to an atheist, making a claim by way of illogical belief, or belief at all, and standing in opposition challenging the logic of reason is equal to an atheist standing at the pulpit at a Church and yelling that there is no God.

Over time, this is a very annoying occurrence, especially in a place like this where one tries to reason and understand.

So, atheists can end up hating religion (and visa verse) because the argument of truth is an argument that takes belief for the religious argument, and requires logic for the atheist. Unfortunately, the atheist cannot logic faith, and that indicates plainly that the religious are false and should therefore stop positing their statements as truths and present them as suppositions only, but religious believers most commonly present their statements as truths rather than suppositions.

Also to note, the religious commonly enter a metaphysical conversation on an entirely different level than an atheist.
An atheist is looking at why a community or person does “x” for “y” religious particular given “z” case, and is also looking at the psychiatric and neurological information gathered that help them to better understand the human body and brain’s interaction with religion.

The religious believer is entering the metaphysical conversation above this level assuming religion as a given of humanity and the absence of it as an abnormality in humanity by choice, and instead looks at the concepts of theological constructs mixed with philosophical paradigms.

The problem occurs when the two attempt to debate the same topic at the same time as if either were talking about the same thing.

Oh…and P.S.
I did understand your original position

17

I understand and agree to an extent with what you guys have said, I believe that every example you have collaboratively provided matches some peoples’ actions.

In terms of this, “holy text,” argument, even a devoutly religious person understands that the bible he/she reads is about fifteen translations, one-hundred kings, and tens of thousands of clergy away from the original, don’t they?

18

Perhaps… but most theists think of God as an active God… one that interacts with the world and does things.

He would not allow the translations to ruin the message if he didn’t want to… and it says in the book he dosn’t want to… so they must be accurate… right?

if they weren’t accurate then you wouldn’t “feel” God present in it… ect…

There are a million ways of getting around the hiccup of human error… and people employ them rather frequently…

Look at the young earth creationists… and ask yourself… why not? Assume for a moment that there is a real God and that he directed people to write the bible on his behalf so that we could all hear his word and know He is with us ect… assume that after you read the bible God revealed himself to you… he gave you the thumbs up because you got the message… and then ask… if god gave his thumbs up on your understanding that the world is 6000 years old… then who we to say he is wrong?

He’s not deceptive at all… he tells us so right there in the bible… who cares about carbon dating and science? those are man made things…

I honestly can’t fault them for thinking the earth is 6000 years old GIVEN their beliefs… but what I can and do fault them for is believing that the bible is the word of God and that their private feelings are instances of God speaking to them to confirm their beliefs…

Think of it this way…

some guy comes up to you and says “Black people ought not have the right to vote or be elected to office”… instantly you disagree with this conclusion the man has reached… But to show it to be false you have to look at why he believes this. You ask and you find out that:
he believes that people with limited mental powers like children and retards should not be allowed to vote or be elected to office… so far so good
He believes that black people are genetically pre-determined to be mentaly incapable… aha… there’s our problem… and that’s the premis we need to do something about… if we don’t than he is perfectly justified in believing as he does.

With theism it’s much the same… its not the flying planes into buildings or the belief that the earth is 6000 years old that’s the problem… It’s the underlying beliefs that allow them to draw such conclusions that’s the real problem we face.

And to take it one step further it’s the REASONS they hold those beliefs that are bad…

“I think blacks are genetically pre-determined to be stupid because when I look at em, I get this feeling that they are retards… even their babies… so it must be genetic”… well… there’s something wrong with that line of reasoning isn’t there? wouldn’t you say that this sort of reasoning is root of the problem?

How can we say the reasoning is good… the premises are good… but the conclusion is false? Well… we can’t…

So even if the guy were to say “black people are genetically equal to the white folks, because I get that feeling when I look at them” we ought to correct him… we can’t say it’s ok here, but not ok in another instance… that’s just hypocritical…

Theists who believe the bible is just some kind of non-literal “guide” from god, are on no better ground than the one saying it’s the literal word of god… and I don’t see how we can criticise one without also criticising the other…

19

LOL

Good point. I suppose that people are going to believe whatever they want to believe, even if they have to cite the very text being called into question to, “prove,” their point.

20

People are not logic machines… they are emotional creatures who act and react on the basis of their emotions. In reality people who cling so irrationally to their faith don’t do it because they think they have valid or sound logical reasons for doing so… they do so because they see it as the source of their good feelings… the source of their hopefulness and comfort. and they don’t want to give that up… even if that means making no sense in the process of defending it.

If we could give them an alternative source… then I think they would leave it be… people like this are not convinced by logic and reason… they need a community of people around them telling them everything is going to be ok… that life is good as it is… show them that love between humans isn’t always curropt… ect… then they won’t need to cling on to irrational beliefs to feel good about being mortal, being alive and being human… and maybe then reason will prevail.