[ARCHIVED DEBATE] A Civilized Debate on Religion

[Estormo]

As a Roman Catholic, yes. I believe God exists.

[Estormo]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

Nationstates has the nature of the "Unholy Fedora". Extremely common on the Internet, where it is most prevalent.

[Socialist Republic of India]

As a Roman Catholic, yes. I believe God exists.

As an atheist I do not believe any gods exist.

[Breheim]

As a heathen (my own beliefs are a mixture of the norse faith and norwegian folk beliefs), I do believe gods exist.

[The USOT]

1) I wasn't implying it was a definitive yes or no, only that you can honestly say yes or no, it really has no definitiveness to it because it's only an opinion, not a fact.

2)Here's the problem with that; not everyone that believes in God claims God is real. A) They simply believe he is there, but that is a belief, not a claim. Contrary to that, you will hear many atheists say belief in God is irrational, illogical, etc. and place their evidence on a few facts that basically amount to inconsistencies and lack of evidence from the other side. What it lacks is any conclusive evidence on whether there is or is not a God. Why you decide to believe or not believe in God is entirely up to you, but your reason is only as logical as opinions equal facts. Opinions do not equal facts though. Likewise, your reasons to believe or not believe may very well prove or disprove God to you, but that doesn't make it a scientific fact, just your opinion. B) Opinions are not the basis of science, facts are, and since no facts exist either way, we can assume the only logical conclusion to our question is maybe.

3) A)Not believing is not the same as the null hypothesis. B)This exists only in scientific debate, and although many seem to have forgotten this, religion falls into a philosophical debate. But besides that, the fact remains that now both sides have stuck themselves in yet another game of mental gymnastics. Are atheists just the null hypothesis, or is it an actual belief? Frankly, if someone is sitting here trying to show why belief in God is irrational, I think it's safe to say they believe there is no God. Someone who isn't sure would typically try and see how both sides see. But on the topic of scientific debate, again evolution and the big bang are nowhere's near sufficient enough to prove there is no God. Religious people just as easily will turn and say that God was behind that, and what evidence is there to prove them wrong? True, there is no evidence to prove them right, but this debate essentially becomes a cycle of "who do we get to pin the burden on?" I'm sorry, but that isn't a logical debate, that's a waste of time perpetuated by two sides that cannot accept that their beliefs are (in scientific terms) equal in credibility. But nobody wants to accept the other side has credibility, because that means they might be wrong. It's a very arrogant way of thinking if I may say.

4) I'm glad you brought this chart in because this was what I was referring too. However, I must disagree with your definitions. The definitions given on the chart are accurate, so let me rephrase this for you.

A) Agnostic Theism: 100% certainty there is a God or gods.

Gnostic Atheism: 100% certainty there is no God or gods.

Agnostic Theism: Believes in a God or gods, but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty. Often what I hear from people like this is they are more "open" about the topic, willing to change their mind if there is reason too.

Agnostic Atheism: Lacks belief in a God or gods, but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty. Likewise, I've heard from one good friend of mine like this that he would be open to believing in God, if there was reason too.

Now the problem is that manB) y atheists over the past few years "changed" their beliefs from believing there was no God to "not believing" in any God. Essentially, this is just redefining things and playing mental gymnastics to avoid having to disprove God. On the religious side though, they've taken the side of defining atheism as needing "faith", which scares atheists because (argument wise) it lowers them to the same level as the religious. Likewise though, some Christians also claim logic is not needed for them to prove their point. Both sides play horrible mental gymnastics, and I'm sorry but redefining their own beliefs (on the atheist side) is just as bad as religious persons using strawmans. And it brings up the point, if someone doesn't believe one way or the other, why do they act as if they do? Why do they call religion illogical? The statement isn't a scientific one, it's a personal view, an opinion, and an emotional one at that. That says to me they don't believe in God or gods, not that they lack a belief. Either way though, it's all mental gymnastics, all empty rhetoric, and it's all done for the same reason; to justify not having any proof or a better argument to make up for that. C) I should also mention, I'm not saying agnostic atheists won't debate, just that it makes no sense for them to call themselves that if their opinion so blatantly leans towards gnostic atheism.

I don't disagree with these points at all, only that I should mention that this debate is horribly muddled due to the fact that some atheists have "changed" their beliefs on the sole basis of making the debate more in their favor. Or then again, maybe they're all a little uncertain at the core, but it then leaves the rest of us wondering why it is they fight so hard against religion. And I suppose the same can be said for the religious side as well, I suspect some of them have been in the exact same position as some of the atheists I mentioned, only most of them don't voice it (likely because they think it would be damaging to the argument). Either way though, this all is essentially mental gymnastics and is not logical at all. If either religious or non-religious people have a point to make, they should make it and stop making excuses for not having proof. At the end of the day (and I don't care who disagrees with me because all that is is more mental gymnastics being thrown in to "defend" their side) both belief in religion and non-belief in religion are on equal footing. 5) A)Both have made claims at one point or another, and neither has provided proof. This debate cannot be treated like any other debate because this is the one debate that totally lacks any way of proving a side. C)You can say all you want that that means the default is that there is no God, or that their might not be a God, the only "default" answer is maybe, whether you, me, or anyone else likes it or not. Some like to draw similarities between this debate and Santa being real or not, but the issue with anything like that is the premise that Santa is a physical being, which can be measured, sensed (by sight, sound, etc), or tested in some method. The same is not true for God or gods, the premise is they are (usually) outside our physical realm. Therefore, we cannot treat this like a regular scientific debate. And it is on this note that I say, how is it possible people can still consider dragging this debate on? We know it will go nowhere, we know it will prove nothing, and if we were all being brutally honest, we would know that one side's belief is no more logical or illogical than the others.

Postby Ostroeuropa » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:08 am
"All gods can be rendered mundane, tautologous, or impossible.
So either your god doesn't exist, or it isn't a god."

6) I'm going to go out on a limb and say this person considers him or herself an "agnostic" atheist. Well, he or she just claimed all gods can essentially be disproven. Well, burden of proof is on her. As you said earlier, the burden of proof is on the claimant, NOT on the person who claims "there is". That's more mental gymnastics "agnostic" atheists created to distance themselves from the burden of proof. As I already said, there are claims on both sides, so I think I, as a neutral party, am entitled to proof. From both sides. I do not care about empty rhetoric or mental gymnastics. I want proof, I want evidence, I want facts. I do not want any more excuses. This debate has been dragged on long enough, and since I'm sitting here on no ones side, and since I'm calling out both sides for their claims, I think now is a perfect time for people to prove there side.

But you know what? It isn't going to happen. People are going to use empty rhetoric, mental gymnastics, strawmans, and every other excuse possible not to disprove God or to prove him, but to avoid the burden of proof. This isn't a debate about if God is real or not, it's a debate about who has to proof him or disprove him. Nobody is going to because it is physically impossible, and I'm fairly sure even the Bible says this. I don't care if you think that's just an excuse for not being able to prove God, as far as I'm concerned it makes about as much sense as the universe willing all matter and particles into existence. Now, I think I'm done with this debate, and I think everyone else is too. There is no debate anymore, just petty counter arguments that lead to nothing. Good day.

1) No, it is not a matter of oppinion... people can have oppinions on the matter sure, but it is a quantifiable statement.
Note "does Obama exist?" contains the same structure. It asks if an entity qualifies for existance, or fits into reality. Now something must objectivly exist or not.
The only difference between "does Obama exist" and "does God exist" is that God is harder to quantify, and has not been succesfully proven to exist. This does not suddenly make the question different, both are asking for something with potential to quantify, making oppinions really not a part of the equation. It is a yes or no answer, because god must exist or must not.

2)
A) "something exists" is a claim, even if the person involved acknowledges there is no evidence, or that they cannot prove their position. This is having a beleif and not meeting the burden of proof, something which adresses a later point.

B) So you acknowledge that there can be scientific facts and that they are seperate from oppinion, but point 1 did not adress this?
Some people have built up their views based on scientific fact. I for instance am gnostic when it comes to the question of the afterlife, based on the total scientific facts we have on conciousness being entirely related to the brain.

3)
A) You are correct that not beleiving is not the null hypothesis. To be specific, not having a belief IS.
B) Science is not removed from philosophy. Indeed, science is not only a philosophical construct in itself, but directly informs modern philosophy. The philosophy of conciousness for instance is entirely centered around neuroscience and psychology.
The question of the existence of something is an entirely scientific question depending on the claim. Yahweh has numerous incidents where he actively engages with the world. We can say for example that a literalist god of the bible does not exist, as science has shown reality to not match up to a global flood, plants existing before the stars, or a 6000 year old earth.
Here we can actively see a hypothesis (made by creationists all the time) which fails to meet its burden of proof and is debunked in a scientific standard.
Likewise, the evidence towards conciousness being entirely to do with the brain is pretty conclusive. If an afterlife is tied up with the identity of a deity, a fair argument can be made that it fails to match up to the reality that actually exists.

4) Your standard of different is odd... What you put is in black, what I put will be in red
Agnostic Theism: 100% certainty there is a God or gods.
[color=#FF0000][color=#FF0000]know there is a god and it is provable![/color][/color]
Whilst my definitions were abridged (mainly because I have had people not understand the terms in the past) that is in essence the same thing. If somebody beleives 100% that a god exists, they are making the claim that it does exist. Ergo they beleive it is provable.

Gnostic Atheism: 100% certainty there is no God or gods.
I know there is no god and it is provable!
Same as Agnotic Theism in intent

Agnostic Theism: Believes in a God or gods, but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty. Often what I hear from people like this is they are more "open" about the topic, willing to change their mind if there is reason too.
I think there is a god, but I can't neccesarily prove it/think it makes more sense for there to be one
I don't see the disagreement here? The only potential part is the alternate "/thin it makes more sense for there to be one" which is an example of the not knowing %100 whilst holding a beleif.

Agnostic Atheism: Lacks belief in a God or gods, but doesn't claim to know with 100% certainty. Likewise, I've heard from one good friend of mine like this that he would be open to believing in God, if there was reason too.
I don't believe in a god.
...

B) And who are these people who changed the definition in the last few years? Certainly cant have been Bertrand Russel who both identified as agnostic and an atheistm back in the 50s...
Or does your view of recent stem back to the 18 hundreds when the term was becoming more common place? With Robert Flint "The atheist may however be, and not unfrequently is, an agnostic. There is an agnostic atheism or atheistic agnosticism, and the combination of atheism with agnosticism which may be so named is not an uncommon one"
At the moment you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist...
But even if the definitions have changed, so what? That is the position which those in the mainstream of atheism have been defending. A position by any other name is still being defended and rejected by others. Call it agnostic atheism, call it namechangism, the argument is consistent through centuries.

C) Who are these people who`s beleifs so blatently go towards gnostic atheism, that are actually part of the contemporary movement and debate? Note, this does not include youtubers.
As said, it can`s be any of the four horsemen, nor the members of the Atheist experience, nor PZ Meyers or the "new atheist" movement (which holds skepticism of atheist claims too).
Furthermore, if this argument is going to continue can we stop with the whole "mental gymnastics! both sides are being mean to eachother!" it neither has any relevance to the truth of the nature of god, nor any relevance to your conversation. If people are being assholes to eachother, ignore their being assholes and look at their arguments.

5)
A) What claim has the agnostic atheist made? The only claim they have to meet is not having a claim. You even acknowledged this earlier...
C)"You can say all you want that that means the default is that there is no God, or that their might not be a God" I now understand why your post read so oddly. You have entirely misunderstood the agnostic atheist position.
The default position in no way means that there is no god, or that there may be a god. The default position is that there is no reason to beleive that there is.
Imagine for instance you wake up in a room that is locked with no idea how you got there, nor way of knowing how you arrived there. All that is in the room is some paper with a note saying "did you arrive here by a bike, motorbike, car, bus or helicopter?"
Now all of them are possible. Indeed, all of them at different points or in any combination are possible.
The default position is not beleiving you were not brought in by any means, nor a beleif that any one means brought you in. The default position is applied skepticism that there is no good reason to beleive any one of them/combination of them was the way you got to the location.
In the same way, there could very well be a god. But untill evidence is provided, there is no reason to beleive that said god exists.

6) "You can say all you want that that means the default is that there is no God, or that their might not be a God" so you defined a gnostic atheist, provided a quote that fits the gnostic atheist and are using them as an example of an agnostic atheist...
I don't even...

[Estormo]

As a Roman Catholic, yes. I believe God exists.

As an atheist I do not believe any gods exist.

And I am fine with that, so long as you don't shove it down my throat. (Youtube Atheists, mostly)

[Estormo]

As a Roman Catholic, yes. I believe God exists.

As an atheist I do not believe any gods exist.

That's pretty cool.

[Divair2]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

It's been well known for a while that the number of Christians and irreligious is roughly equal. Add in theists from other religious and you've got the current poll.

[Duvniask]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

Nevertheless, some irreligious people could have chosen the other options.

[Madnolia]

Personally i dont care what religions do, as long as they dont stand in the way of progress. (GM crops, Genetic engineering, medical research etc)

Also i want those jehovas witnesses to leave my nan alone. You dont want to see my nan when she's angry.

[Mavorpen]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

It's been well known for a while that the number of Christians and irreligious is roughly equal. Add in theists from other religious and you've got the current poll.

I've always found it funny how people are surprised by this. The reason you see mostly atheists in these types of threads is because most of the reasonable religious people don't bother. You mostly get the people who are REALLY into their religion posting, and those people tend to makes bad arguments and get chased out of the thread because of this. What's actually posted in the threads doesn't in any way shape or form reflect the personal beliefs of those who read the thread/vote.

[Estormo]

Personally i dont care what religions do, as long as they dont stand in the way of progress. (GM crops, Genetic engineering, medical research etc)

Also i want those jehovas witnesses to leave my nan alone. You dont want to see my nan when she's angry.

Just tell them "I went to that church and they told me to never come back."

...They never did try me again.

[Reformed Revolutionary China]

Personally i dont care what religions do, as long as they dont stand in the way of progress. (GM crops, Genetic engineering, medical research etc)

Also i want those jehovas witnesses to leave my nan alone. You dont want to see my nan when she's angry.

Just tell them "I went to that church and they told me to never come back."

...They never did try me again.

I just usually ignore them when they come ringing my doorbell. I've learned to filter out that little bugger. Fellow Chinese people around here will just yell or bang on my gate.

[Madnolia]

Just tell them "I went to that church and they told me to never come back."

...They never did try me again.

I just usually ignore them when they come ringing my doorbell. I've learned to filter out that little bugger. Fellow Chinese people around here will just yell or bang on my gate.

Trust me the ones around my nans are bloody dedicated. If they spot her through a window, they wont leave.

[Reformed Revolutionary China]

I just usually ignore them when they come ringing my doorbell. I've learned to filter out that little bugger. Fellow Chinese people around here will just yell or bang on my gate.

Trust me the ones around my nans are bloody dedicated. If they spot her through a window, they wont leave.

Ever thought about getting a dog? The usual deterrents. I've entertained JW's once and I intend to keep avoiding all bodily contact with them as much as possible.

[Madnolia]

Trust me the ones around my nans are bloody dedicated. If they spot her through a window, they wont leave.

Ever thought about getting a dog? The usual deterrents. I've entertained JW's once and I intend to keep avoiding all bodily contact with them as much as possible.

Good god i cannot imagine my nan with a dog.

She might go immigrant hunting...

[Madnolia]

Trust me the ones around my nans are bloody dedicated. If they spot her through a window, they wont leave.

Ever thought about getting a dog? The usual deterrents. I've entertained JW's once and I intend to keep avoiding all bodily contact with them as much as possible.

Hey theres a thought, if jehovas witnesses are against sharing bodily fluids (blood transfusions) then how do they breed?

[Reformed Revolutionary China]

Good god i cannot imagine my nan with a dog.

She might go immigrant hunting...

You'd be surprised at what a dog behind a gate can do for you. Just so long as whoever's outside doesn't find out what breed it is. I only own three beagles.

Immigrant hunting? Your nan must be a very interesting person.

[Czechanada]

Wow, in the poll, ''yes'' is leading, I expected more ''noes'' due to the nature of NS.

It's been well known for a while that the number of Christians and irreligious is roughly equal. Add in theists from other religious and you've got the current poll.

So you are saying that since the existence of God is determined by a popularity content, the demographics of NSG dictate that God is in a state of simultaneously existing and not existing?

[Divair2]

It's been well known for a while that the number of Christians and irreligious is roughly equal. Add in theists from other religious and you've got the current poll.

I've always found it funny how people are surprised by this. The reason you see mostly atheists in these types of threads is because most of the reasonable religious people don't bother. You mostly get the people who are REALLY into their religion posting, and those people tend to makes bad arguments and get chased out of the thread because of this. What's actually posted in the threads doesn't in any way shape or form reflect the personal beliefs of those who read the thread/vote.

As is the case on every website.

[Ashmoria]

Ever thought about getting a dog? The usual deterrents. I've entertained JW's once and I intend to keep avoiding all bodily contact with them as much as possible.

Hey theres a thought, if jehovas witnesses are against sharing bodily fluids (blood transfusions) then how do they breed?

its not the sharing of bodily fluids. its the "eating" of blood.

[Aravea]

Don't we have better things to do with our lives than endlessly debate the existence of a deity? The way I see it is if you want to believe in a deity that's your choice. If you don't want to believe in one than more power to you. However just because you have a different belief or lack thereof dosen't mean you should shove it down someone's throat repeatedly(To the atheists out there I am referring to antitheists not atheists in general.). Sorry to say folks but religion contrary to the delusions of some people will not disappear off the face of the earth. It may decline or diminish but it will not disappear. Now can we please quit wasting bandwidth on discussing the same topic ad nauseum? Oh no wait I forgot this is NSG.

I bet you all fifty bucks that someone is going to get their knickers in a twist about this post.

[Benuty]

Don't we have better things to do with our lives than endlessly debate the existence of a deity? The way I see it is if you want to believe in a deity that's your choice. If you don't want to believe in one than more power to you. However just because you have a different belief or lack thereof dosen't mean you should shove it down someone's throat repeatedly(To the atheists out there I am referring to antitheists not atheists in general.). Sorry to say folks but religion contrary to the delusions of some people will not disappear off the face of the earth. It may decline or diminish but it will not disappear. Now as for the hypocrisy of certain groups that's another story entirely...

We cannot make the people who do it for a living lose their day jobs unless we face a crash.

[Geilinor]

Hey theres a thought, if jehovas witnesses are against sharing bodily fluids (blood transfusions) then how do they breed?

its not the sharing of bodily fluids. its the "eating" of blood.

Blood transfusions are "eating"?

[Aravea]

I just find it hilarious to be honest.