Alara317 said:
No, the thread's intention wasn't censorship, it was forced rationale. I've said it a half dozen times now, you're more than allowed to believe what you want, but when discussing important topics, any stance you have should be properly supported and substantiated with use of evidence, proof, or at least a strong supporting theory. Religion, as a whole, should stay in the realm of the spiritual and philisophical, and should have absolutely no place in discussions about human rights, technological advancements, or ethics. The original post stated that I don't like debating religion becuase A: you couldn't prove or disprove it so it was futile, and B: I don't like seeing religious points in debates not about religion for the reason explained in A. I do like discussing the mythological, philisophical, or spiritual implications of Christianity, Hinduism,Taoism, Muslim, and Buddhism, but the issue is that (at least online), I've yet to find a person with the logic and rationality needed to understand the difference between 'scientific or social truth' and 'the word of God.' I'm frustrated with the prospect of bringing up religion in other debates becuase every time "god" is mentioned, someone (usually me) brings up how illogical it is to believe in a god, which is met not with the "you're right" or "I understand that but it gives me hope" or even the silly but true "I have a right to believe", but is followed by a wave of "but it's silly to have faith in science, too" or "you can't prove God doesn't exist, and that gives me all the reason in the world to believe in his holiness". It's a series of terrible, flawed logic, semantics, and an ill-advised attempt by internet crusaders to try and debunk or at least criticize the scientific method, and that scares me. It scares me that, in an effort to justify believing in something without proof, people are willing to dismiss thousands of years of scientific advancements just so that the two 'faiths' are on equal standing. I may be a little immature when it comes to my hatred for religion, but I'm not wrong, and this wanton attack on atheism or attempted disproval of science, relegated to 'faith in truth' scares me and makes me wonder how we've advanced as far as we have. That's why I have a problem with religious debates. |
So what you did is, set up a straw man argument in your first post in order to bait 'Religious folks' into the exact type of debate you claim to not like, with the intention of showing how stupid and illogical we all are. You even admint you have a hatred for religion (which was pretty obvious from the beginning). I guess what I'm saying is, you might be the Atheist version of the religious straw man you hate, because you criticize a 'wanton attack on atheism' while setting up a wanton attack on religion.
Also, I can only speak for myself in saying I'm certainly not attempting to debunk science or the scientific method (this is another 'straw man' used to attack people of faith, we're backwards crazy people who hate science, simply not true in most cases). I see some holes in current scientific theories on the origin of life, and it's perfectly acceptable for me to point out the holes I see in those theories. The scientific method is the best system we have for understanding the natural world around us, that certainly does not mean that every theory that comes out of the scientific method is set in stone and not up for debate, theories have changed drastically in the past, many will again in the future. Just because somebody debates against a scientific idea or theory or points out that science is not infallable, does not mean that person is debating against science or the scientific method.







