Why Its So Tricky for Atheists to Debate with Believers

 
  • If the sole reason they didn't hire him is that it wouldn't seem right, he has every right to sue them. It really depends on what his job would be and whether his beliefs would prevent him from doing it well.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
  • Interesting article, I get into a fair amount of religious arguments with my friends and some strangers and im usually outnumbered 4 to 1... lol. Those arguments r hard and i never really win. Its cause atheist don't consider their opinion 'beliefs' as theist do, its just our logic and we mean to prove things through this logic and hard evidence, while theist take their beliefs very seriously, even small criticisms get them all worked up and they just end up swearing and damning me to hell and stuff like that. I can't even tell my family im an atheist cause they will disown me and i don't hav the funds to live by myself, so i hav to pretend to be a good muslim and go along with rituals I oppose.

  • Exactly. The atheists are open to discovering the world and the laws of the Universe, while the theists are guided by medieval, ancestral principles and prejudices. The religion is always more backwarded in development compared to science. The history is showing that it remains behind the development and that it is incapable to recognize the physical discoveries. Anyhow the religion is losing ground today.

  • NightVision09 said:
    . Anyhow the religion is losing ground today.


    Not really, there has been a rise of fanaticism in the last decade and from my observations i can conclude that a large people in my part of the south-east asia and Middle east r becoming more and more religious.

  • there may be more fanatics among the religious today, but overall, I think there are less religious people than there used to. Of course, that depends on the region too. In Bangladesh it may not be the case.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
  • Yes religion isn't the powerful in the west anymore and there has been a considerable rise in atheism. But in the muslim countries things hav been different, in the last ten years muslim communities hav been more religious and more conservative not to mention developed a strong dislike towards western cultures. The younger generation actually read through the religious scriptures nowadays rather than listen to what the old people preach, which brings them a better understanding of their religion.

  • In conditions of christianity losing authority in Europe, there are enough persons who deicide to adopt the muslim religion. So, TheShamit , is it so bad and dangerous in Bangladesh to show that you are an atheist?

  • Yup, very dangerous, unless u hav political support.

  • I didn't think nowadays the religion is still so obligatoru and the persons are forces to adopte it. But maybe it's because in Europe the things are more liberal in this regard. Although in my country (as in other orthodox countries) in many cases there's better not to recognise that i'm not a christian...still many prejudices.

  • Its not only having different beliefs, basically doing anything that doesn't fall into the social and religious norms can get u into trouble, although nothing much ever happens to the men they just get away with some minor punishment, but for women things r much more severe.

  • NightVision09 said:
    Exactly. The atheists are open to discovering the world and the laws of the Universe, while the theists are guided by medieval, ancestral principles and prejudices. The religion is always more backwarded in development compared to science. The history is showing that it remains behind the development and that it is incapable to recognize the physical discoveries. Anyhow the religion is losing ground today.


    I do think it is important to point out that there are quite a few progressive believers out there who understands scripture like non-believers do. Religion is not backwards per se, it simply depends on what people make use of it.

    There is an on-going trend of religion functioning as a tool to reject modernity especially in Islamic countries, but the same is true in the West. There is an increasing rise of New Age movements and in previous communist countries religious affiliation is rising as well. So overall yes, I would say the world is in fact becoming more religious but the religions are generally with a few exceptions trying to mend science and faith.

    I do need to point out that I have sources to back up my claims so you don't think I just say it for the sake of defending religion. I just think it is important to not generalize. Yes, some religious groups may seem very backwards by being more interested in adopting previously existing values that most people today may have discarded but it is again also important to understand that they are just that, values, and they differentiate between peoples. The problem is how to make opposing values co-exist within the same society, but it is important to understand that if a woman choses to join a religious group that may adopt more traditional gender roles, it is her choice and she did it because she prefers those values over others.

  • @LeaTelamon: Agreed, but most people never really join religion, they r simply given a religion to follow by their family and society and they hav to fit into that social structure. so they don't really choose a role, just follow the role common in their society.

  • TheShamit said:
    @LeaTelamon: Agreed, but most people never really join religion, they r simply given a religion to follow by their family and society and they hav to fit into that social structure. so they don't really choose a role, just follow the role common in their society.


    Of course, structures affect us all the time Shamit, but it is also important to note that when you choose to follow a certain societal structure you are a part of the structure by maintaining its power within society. It's not just society is having power over you, you also engage in society all the time and your actions and lack thereof also effect society at large. It's a two-way street.

  • Agree, there are many cases when only a single person could change the situation and the regime, and then they had many followers. So it is important not to conform yourself with the general condition, although i'm aware that in some cases it's simply impossible, especially in totalitarian dictatorships.

    LeaTelamon : As i'm a person from an ex-communistic country i can say for sure that many persons returned to christianity, because it's a religion with strong and long orthodox traditions in those countries and of course the communistic regime could not irradicate it. It's just funny to see how even the big ex-communistic leaders are going now to church. The humanity needs a spiritual dimension in their lives, that's why they are finding it in religion, nomatter which it is, because they need those values you are talking about, weather they are primitive or not for these days. The religion walked toghether with the humanity throughout all its existance and i suppose it will always be so.

    • [Raderad användare] sa...
    • Användare
    • 11 jan 2011, 12:51
    I did not read any of this, but the sole quesiton made me find this answer: it's difficult to argue with believers, because they have a system of beliefs which can be easily supported verbally, based on imagination and rich iconography, imposed upon them since childhood, so they find it deeply rooted and unquestionable. all their minds work for teh sake of their belief's defense. I wouldn't waste time for arguing because there is no point. I would go my own way and focus on that more difficul way of finding the existential inexplicabilities that manifest truth that can be only known, but not verbalized.

  • It's very strange that nowadays people can still believe in this tale of christianity or any other religion.

  • Nah, not really. People believe all kinds of crap.

    I can’t think of any greater happiness than to be with you all the time, without interruption, endlessly, even though I feel that here in this world there’s no undisturbed place for our love, neither in the village nor anywhere else; and I dream of a grave, deep and narrow, where we could clasp each other in our arms as with clamps, and I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
  • Yes. One another eloquent example is this one:

    Ruhnama-The Holy Book of Turkmenistan.

    http://newsreel.org/video/SHADOW-OF-THE-HOLY-BOOK
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhnama

  • Sorry I didn't join in into the major "debate" here, but I've seen this series a few days ago and I thought it may be of interest to this debate here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

    It is Richard Dawkins talking to creationist Wendy Wright, of course there is lot of discussion. Sorry if I made a entry which has been covered in another thread (I didn't check the discussion page in detail).

    Seriously, SHE calls him close minded and accuses science of censorship? If that would be true, then there is something I've missed in the last hundreds of years.

  • M_Vreidson said:
    Sorry I didn't join in into the major "debate" here, but I've seen this series a few days ago and I thought it may be of interest to this debate here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

    It is Richard Dawkins talking to creationist Wendy Wright, of course there is lot of discussion. Sorry if I made a entry which has been covered in another thread (I didn't check the discussion page in detail).

    Seriously, SHE calls him close minded and accuses science of censorship? If that would be true, then there is something I've missed in the last hundreds of years.


    Nah, you didn't miss anything. The Catholic Church has done that for ages.

  • The best argument is still: "No matter what you say: I will continue believing in Jesus, because he saved us all."

    O_o

  • A significant, portion of the human race either lacks the ability or the will to think logically

  • It's so difficult to debate because so many religious people blindly follow there beliefs. I have gotten in a "debate" with many religious beliefs and I can tell that they don't even think about what they believe in. As a matter of fact, it scares them. They all acted like questioning things was evil. I brought up many things in the bible that contradicts itself. They still couldn't come up with any logic at all, one even went as far as saying logic is man made. If logic is man made then how do other animals come to decisions. Yes a good deal is instinct but there is some logic in there somewhere. If we didn't exist, logic still would. There just wouldn't be a description of it. A rock would either be a rock or it wouldn't. If logic was man made and we wouldn't exist than the outcome would be the rock is and isn't a rock at the same time. Logically we know the object (the rock) can be what it is or what it isn't. Also for those wishing a debate with intelligent, religious people, bring this up: Is your god omnipotent? As I'm sure many people here know, an omnipotent being is logically impossible. But give them this question. If your god is omnipotent can he create something that is to heavy even for him to left? Any of the 2 answers would disprove god. Answer A: Yes he can create something that is to heavy even for him to hold. Well then he isn't omnipotent like everyone believes and how the bible says. Answer B: No he can not create something that is to heavy for him to lift. Well then he isn't omnipotent. But many retarted religious people belive there is an answer C: God can create something that is to heavy even for him to lift it and he can lift it, etc, etc. UneMortelle also said what I took the time to describe in one sentence to. :)

  • TheShamit said:
    A significant, portion of the human race either lacks the ability or the will to think logically


    A majority of the population thinks logically, but this logic is mostly applied to pragmatic issues, such as "how much food can I get for this penny?". The logic you are talking about, the logic of science and so forth is mostly theoretical logic. Even religion does follow its own logic because the logic is internal. The problem that arises is that religion is a different way to view the world than science and this is also one of the reasons why science and religion are having hard times going well together.

    I think it is very easy, particularly for a well-educated person to say that there is only one type of logic and that is the logic of science (formal education in practically every country in the world follows the idea of formal logic that science is built upon). But most people don't like in a theoretical world, they live in the practical world. They do not bother their minds with "how do I define this plant?", but for a majority of the world's population when seeing a plant will most likely ask questions such as "is it edible?" and "how will it taste like (in dish X)?". See, this is where logic kicks in. Because to answer these two questions, you must possess some kind of knowledge about that particular plant. For example, you recognize that it is a fruit, and based on your previous experiences, fruits are generally edible and often taste very sweet. You like sweet fruits so you think it will taste good. Because definitions such as "good" and "bad" are value statements, they cannot be true or false. This means that the question "does it taste good?" cannot be said to be true or false, but it does not mean we cannot draw a logical conclusion from this. If you like oranges, you will most likely also like oranges in the future. Would you for some reason come across an orange that tastes good, logic kicks in again to try and find why you didn't like that particular orange. Maybe the orange was old, or maybe it was a new type.

    This is the kind of logic people use in their daily lives and we all depend on this logic to properly function. It is not formal logic, but it is logic.

    Well then he isn't omnipotent. But many retarted religious people belive there is an answer C: God can create something that is to heavy even for him to lift it and he can lift it, etc, etc. UneMortelle also said what I took the time to describe in one sentence to. :)


    They use internal logic. Is the conclusion sound? No. Is it contradictive? Yes. But it makes sense (to them) because that is the definition of god. I mean, we encounter this kind of logic all the time in fiction.I mean, one of the most supposed powerful villains in fantasy fiction is Sauron. Yet, despite his allmightyness and being a demigod on Middle-Earth and all that he lost his fucking finger to a mortal. You'd think Sauron would've fried the fly on the spot, but no, Sauron had to let go of is fucking finger and thereby losing the ring forever. If you compare the power between Isildur and Sauron, you realize how pathetic Sauron must've been to have let Isildur cut off that very finger he was wearing the ring on. Yet it happened, and no one questions this. It is even described as one of the greatest feats in the whole trilogy. Yet, when you think about it logically, Sauron must've let Isildur do that, because nothing else really makes sense. Arrogance in all honor, but surely there must've been other means for Sauron to kill Isildur than a sword fight that in all honesty would've been so much cooler than beheading.
    /end of LotR rant here <.<

    Aaaaaaaaaaand... I honestly don't know why I keep defending religious people in this thread. I guess what I'm asking for also is maybe a bit of humbleness (and less generalization). Being able to understand why religious people think like they do will greatly help you in your argumentation, also, because it makes you able to phrase questions in such a way that they can possibly understand.

  • Yes people understand the logic of 'profit and loss' very well, i guess the human race make pretty good accountants

Anonyma användare kan inte skriva inlägg. Vänligen logga in eller skapa ett konto för att göra inlägg i forumen.