By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - This is why I don't like debating religion

Alara317 said:

I don't like debating religion.

Well, that's a lie, I do like debating religion (amongst other topics), the problem is that you really can't debate religion. Well, you can, but people really, really suck at it. See, my issue is that I have spent the majority of my life aspiring to gain knowledge and understanding of the world around me, which is why I love science so much.

I understand why people want to believe in their religion, or have spirituality, I understand the need for hope of an afterlife. I understand that the idea of an omnipresent father figure watching over you is actually kinda comforting. Knowing (or at least thinking you know) that there's someone out there watching you and giving your life meaning, well, it gives life meaning, and people need that. While I don't appreciate how religion offers comfort without substance, I understand why it exists and I truly do think that everyone has a right to believe what they want to believe.

So why don't I like debating religion? Well, it's because there's no winning a debate with a religious person, and it's NOT because they're right or my arguments fail (neither statement is correct.) I won't debate religion because even if I spent two weeks straight explaining why each and every detail in every bible ever was wrong, debunking myths or explaining how science has a better, more accurate answer, I will never, ever convince the devout that perhaps they need to be a bit more rational and critical of their faith.

The issue is that religious arguments require so many leaps of faith and sometimes flat out faulty logic to get to the conclusion they do. Take the gay rights argument:

1 – First, they need to justify their claim by proving that God thinks gays are bad. This is usually done by quoting Leviticus.

2 – They then have to prove that the vaguely written quote about homosexuality actually meant that gays are bad (hint: the vagueness of the bible's prose in any language means most passages can be interpreted multiple ways.)

3 – Then they have to prove that there are no contradictions counteracting that statement, which isn't common, since there were plenty of things about Jesus saying you're not supposed to judge and that every man woman and child was created in God's own image, meaning that God made gay people gay.

4 – If they manage to somehow properly argue those first points, they then have to explain why their version of their religion is more right than another. For example, Catholics don't like contraception, as it doesn't make offspring, which is a relatively reasonable explanation as to why homosexuality is bad; Protestants, however, aren't as strict with the contraception thing.

5- They have to prove that their religion is the right one, by comparing it to historical data and cross-referencing other religions. This, naturally, can't be done, but assuming it could and Christianity was correct, we'll continue.

6 – They have to prove that the bible was written by GOD and not by MAN.

7 – They then have to prove that the bible was never tampered with and that what is written is pure. If they cannot do this, then it's clear that anything written in any bible is subject to criticism of man and accusations of tampering. Since we're talking about a book written over the course of hundreds of years by too many people to count, the chances of this being the case are astronomically low. Doubly so given man's tendency to manipulate and control others.

8 – They then have to prove that, not only did God write these things and that they're pure, but that there's actually a God. This is usually done by saying that everything had to come from something, citing the fact that science has yet to prove anything concerning the big bang theory, since it's, you know, billions of years before our time. However, this is not proof, only a 'what-if' scenario. While the big bang has science and observation on its side, the 'god did it' argument has only the word of a book written thousands of years ago that says so.

This is mainly why I don't debate religion, or allow people to use religious arguments in non-religious debates. Mostly because as soon as we've skipped past steps 2-7 to get right to the “is there a god” argument to immediately back up the almost certainly faulty argument that God said gays are bad (or whatever argument you need), you have people attacking science, and I have a real problem with that. “Well, you need to have faith in science too, so that makes god just as viable of a theory as the big bang!” No, you fools, it does not. On one hand you have a discipline based on being able to test theories extensively to maintain effects that can be reproduced vs a belief system based, at its core, on “well, there are spots science hasn't or can't explain adequately, so that must mean God did it.”

If you're using 'God' as a metaphor for the unknown or that which is beyond our plausible comprehension, then it kind of works, but accept that God is a metaphor and not an anthropomorphized being. As a conscious, divine being, there's absolutely no proof to substantiate that claim other than a book written thousands of years ago that not only is vague at best but could be (and most likely was) tampered with and no more than an item used by people to control others.

God may be real, but nothing in our history has ever actively pointed towards that being the truth. God is little more than a metaphor used to explain away things we don't know, and as our culture grows towards being more enlightened, with science explaining more and more that was once attributed to God, people who want to believe continue to do so because that's what they want to believe, not because that's where the logic points them, and they will do ANYTHING they can to plant the seed of doubt in others because the very idea that this thing they've dedicated their lives to may be false or flat up lies hurts them.

One book I read concerning the subject was called, I think, Religion as a Social Phenomenon. It likened faith and religion to a local sports team. Think about it, when you gained your religious beliefs, was it something you thought about? Was it something you took the time to weigh the options on before concluding that the religion you follow, or was it something you just kinda were born into? Statistically speaking, something like 2-3% of religious people actually change religions or spend time researching the options before proclaiming themselves one religion, an overwhelming majority just stick with whatever they were born with or what their friends pushed on them. In that respect it's like a Sports Team. Look at the Toronto Maple leafs: Their win/loss record is atrocious, yet people in Ontario cheer them regardless; not because they chose to like or support Toronto, but because they were born in or near Toronto and that's what all their family and friends support.

Religion is a Social Phenomenon, a cultural meme, and nothing more. The fact that people believe in it despite the saddening lack of real evidence supporting it bothers me, which is why I chose not to debate it. I chose to be atheist because I have not experienced or heard of any evidence supporting such a being, and it is incredibly irrational to believe something without good reason (and hope/desperation is not a good reason.) I do not believe there is NO GOD, as there is just as little evidence supporting that theory as there is supporting the existence of god: None. Atheism isn't about actively and aggressively believing there is no god, just that they chose not to have a belief. People believe in God without logic, and the closest thing to proof that any religion is right is an example of them filling in the blanks left by incomplete scientific inquiry with a vague and desperate 'what-if' scenario. That's not good enough for me and it shouldn't be good enough for anyone with the ability to be a critical thinker.

There's a word for that kind of person: Gullible.

So, if you can prove god is real, that your god is the right one, that He wrote the book, that the book wasn't tampered with, and that your interpretation of it is correct, I will gladly debate with you, until then, please keep it to yourself.   

I would marry you so wise, so real, so right.. Oops Sorry being gay is a bad thing!



Switch!!!

Around the Network

A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith.



timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
I think the answer to that question is obvious. A better question is where does the evidence lead us? Does the evidence or lack thereof point toward a supernatural being, or no? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well, but perhaps that's just me.

To somebody who believes in God, the immense complexity of the natural world, the amazing interconnected systems that allow all levels of life to function, the interdependence of plant and animal life, the necessity for such precision in the distance of the earth from the sun, exact composition of the atmosphere, necessity of magnetic poles to repel deadly cosmic radiation, and the countless other exact specifications necessary for life that exist on earth add up to an unsurmountable pile of evidence for intelligent design. You see it otherwise. I can see one of those things as being mathematically possible via some equation, but when you add all of them up, there is no way in my view that the entirity of the systems on this life sustaining planet could possibly happen by random chance. This is why it really depends on what evidence you look at it, and how you interpret that evidence.

I agree it's all very spectacularly unlikely, which is why we haven't discovered life elsewhere. I think if you seek to find something, you will find it. 

We have described the process by which we formed, non-organic matter + energy lead to an organic molecule then countless generations of evolution occurred eventually leading to us as humans.

I can't see how you support Intelligent Design when 99% of species that have existed are extinct. What a gigantic waste. The vastness of the Universe again points to a complete waste and it's increasing in waste each second by more than the speed of light. 

You see life as the reason for the conditions, but it is the conditions that are the reason for life. 

 

GameOver22 said:
dsgrue3 said:

 

No doubt. Perhaps the Drake equation wasn't he best example. Goldilocks planets are better.

 

Yeah, I can see that, but it seems some researchers seriously questions if that's a valid measure of whether life can develop becasue there are other planetary factors to take into account. I would agree with them......at least if you want an accurate term for the probability of life developing.


Yeah, it seems to be the very basic requirement. Gotta start somewhere I guess. Add some probabilities for atmospheric stability, probabilities of the planet having all the necessary elements to sustain life, etc.



fedfed said:
Alara317 said:

 

I don't like debating religion.

I would marry you so wise, so real, so right.. Oops Sorry being gay is a bad thing!

Unless you're female you should be ok. Alara's female ;) (or so I thought, for some reason)



On the Big Bang: We know from the observed laws of physics that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, and that an object at rest will stay at rest unless some outside force acts upon it. If all of the matter and energy in the universe were sitting for a presumably infinite period of time in an inert state (at rest), with an infinite density, and infinite amount of gravity holding it all together, (essentially the biggest singularity or black hole you could imagine) and suddently exploded (or expanded, depending on how you describe it), that would by the laws of physics have to be a reaction to something that acted upon it, since the singularity was by definition at rest before the 'big bang'. Since the amount of gravity holding the entirity of the mass of the universe in one singularity is presumably infinite or incalculably massive, the force to act upon it to break that gravity would also have to be infinite or incalculably massive (since every action has an EQUAL and opposite reaction, the big bang being the reaction). In addition, time would theoretically stand still in this infinitely large and dense black hole, so something outside the constraints of time would have to act upon it to create the reaction described (the explosion or expansion of the universe). Science clearly points to a 'big bang' of some kind starting the universe that we see, the question is, how did it happen? There's only one force I know of that is infinitely powerful and outside the constraints of space-time.



Around the Network
timmah said:
A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith.

An important point! Its really the question of whether our experiments are externally valid.....as in, can we extrapolate our findings within the laboratory to the outside world.

Have we really not created life though? I thought we had....maybe just the basic building blocks of DNA atleast?



timmah said:
A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith.

Life took billions of years to develop. Why would be able to speed up the process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Describes how amino acids formed on Earth, more than necessary for life.

http://www.gizmag.com/bringing-life-to-inoganic-matter/19855/

Inorganic chemicals may be able to evolve and self-replicate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

RNA is self-replicating

Not sure what further confirmation you need.



dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
dsgrue3 said:
I think the answer to that question is obvious. A better question is where does the evidence lead us? Does the evidence or lack thereof point toward a supernatural being, or no? I think the answer to that question is obvious as well, but perhaps that's just me.

To somebody who believes in God, the immense complexity of the natural world, the amazing interconnected systems that allow all levels of life to function, the interdependence of plant and animal life, the necessity for such precision in the distance of the earth from the sun, exact composition of the atmosphere, necessity of magnetic poles to repel deadly cosmic radiation, and the countless other exact specifications necessary for life that exist on earth add up to an unsurmountable pile of evidence for intelligent design. You see it otherwise. I can see one of those things as being mathematically possible via some equation, but when you add all of them up, there is no way in my view that the entirity of the systems on this life sustaining planet could possibly happen by random chance. This is why it really depends on what evidence you look at it, and how you interpret that evidence.

I agree it's all very spectacularly unlikely, which is why we haven't discovered life elsewhere. I think if you seek to find something, you will find it. 

We have described the process by which we formed, non-organic matter + energy lead to an organic molecule then countless generations of evolution occurred eventually leading to us as humans.

I can't see how you support Intelligent Design when 99% of species that have existed are extinct. What a gigantic waste. The vastness of the Universe again points to a complete waste and it's increasing in waste each second by more than the speed of light. 

You see life as the reason for the conditions, but it is the conditions that are the reason for life. 

 

My point is that we have never observed non-organic matter + energy leading to life, so this is just theoretical postulation. The only life we've ever observed came from other previously existing life. Life coming from non-organic matter goes against everything that has been observed to date.

On the universe being a waste, I strongly disagree (and bear with me for the sake of argument). If God is beyond the scope of the universe and created the universe for his and our enjoyment, it is not a waste, just as art is not a waste even though it arguably has no tangible purpose. The fact that 99% of life that has existed is now extinct is not a waste either, because many of those have led to what exists today (like I said before, I think some level of evolution within general species is designed into the system to make it resilient).

You could also use that logic to say humanity is a waste, since so most humans have died over the course of history and no longer exist. If the soul is eternal, this argument will also not hold water.



dsgrue3 said:

Life took billions of years to develop. Why would be able to speed up the process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Describes how amino acids formed on Earth, more than necessary for life.

http://www.gizmag.com/bringing-life-to-inoganic-matter/19855/

Inorganic chemicals may be able to evolve and self-replicate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

RNA is self-replicating

Not sure what further confirmation you need.

Weren't you criticizing someone for citing wikipedia in the other thread : )

In all seriousness, I've actually heard wikipedia is incredibly accurate for some subjects, like biology, as in its comparable to any textbook you can get on the subject. However, other issues, such as politics, are another story.

Edit: The Miller experiment was actually the one I was thinking of that had reproduced the buiding blocks of life in the laboratory.



dsgrue3 said:
timmah said:
A point on the origin of life, we have yet to, with our own *supposedly* high intelligence, create life from non-life in a laboratory environment, let alone anything that can reproduce and evolve. If we haven't figured out how to make that happen in a tightly controlled test environment under the best possible circumstances, with all of the amino acids necessary present by design, how is that supposed to have happened on its own in the harsh primordial environment of the early earth? We have caused single celled organisms to develop into multi-celled organisms, but we started out with life that already existed in all of these cases and purposefully made the change happen. Every single living thing that we observe can be traced to the living thing that comes before it, but there are absolutely zero examples of any observed living thing existing without a living precursor. The postulation that life came from non-life is simply not backed up by any current testable science, and therefore must be accepted on some level of faith.

Life took billions of years to develop. Why would be able to speed up the process?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

Describes how amino acids formed on Earth, more than necessary for life.

http://www.gizmag.com/bringing-life-to-inoganic-matter/19855/

Inorganic chemicals may be able to evolve and self-replicate.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16382-artificial-molecule-evolves-in-the-lab.html

RNA is self-replicating

Not sure what further confirmation you need.


Throwing in a large amount of time does not automatically make something possible. You're saying it took Billions of years for life to get where it is now, I'm saying we can't even prove that living matter can come from non-living matter, even at the single cell level.

Sure, amino acids can form, we've confirmed that. That still doesn't bridge the gap from non-living matter to living matter. There is still no scientific proof of that at all.

Inorganic chemicals created purposefully by intelligence self-replicated. Ok, so can this happen without us 'making' and 'designing' those chemicals? This still does not prove that life can come from non-life without DESIGN, since those chemicals were specifically designed by intelligent beings (so you're kind of proving my point)

RNA is self-replicating, sure, but that goes back to my point that all life is self-replicating and there is always a precurser of other, pre-existing life. The RNA cannot self-replicate unless RNA already exists.

Not a single example above shows even a single living cell coming from non-living matter.