god debates?

Is it possible to win in a debate between an atheist and a thesist in the existence of god?



Personally I think it's pointless to argue because a belief is almost implanted through experience and adamant as can be. I suppose I just find both arguments for both parties inconclusive for the most part.

 

Religion, or better yet generalized as beliefs, is purely opinion. You cannot determine a winner in a debate that deals with opinions, simply because there is no right, nor wrong way(You can argue that, when it comes to morality, but that's still opinion). You cannot prove god exist, nor can you prove he doesn't, thus believing in such a thing is purely your opinion.

 

As Meeder said you can't base an argument on pure opinions. There isn't proof either way for the God debate, and is therefore useless to argue it.

 

Im an Mormon. I know there is God and Jesus crist. We all can know that if we just ask from God himself.

 

This is the SFA section, and if your going to be saying something like that, you will need more to back it up then just "I know".

At this point, your post is spam.

 

I tried, but I didn't succeed, so I gave it up

 

To be fair Christianity isn't just Mormonism.... You are saying that all Christianity are pedophile bigots just because the founder of one denomination was.

 

I have read books and seen certain documentaries about how Christianity was corrupted and the Bible was altered in certain intervals of time within past history, and I do quite equally believe in corruption occurring in most religions.

But Thomas Paine's words are my exact thought process on how it works.

 

It is usually nice if you relate the quote to us so we can agree or dissent.

 

I'm religious, and I do believe religion is illogical based off of what we know.
But religion also is a deeper understanding of life, and if you can put science together, it makes sense.

But agreeing to that quote is only in perspective of a person of disbelief in God.

On the flip side, you cannot really argue with someone that relies on logic to explain the unexplained.

 

The issue here is about stupidity. At least one party doesn't know anything about the other.
I got into an argument about religion with one guy, and I brought up the fact that for all we know, Jesus was just faking it. Then he says "Well it's the same with your science" I almost slapped him then too...
A debate isn't about whether it is undoubtedly true either. It's about which side has the stronger argument.

 

Sorry, what? Religion and science do not coexist well and never have. Unless you are interpreting the concept of God on a personal level, free of any of the major doctrines throughout the world, I honestly can't see where you're coming from.

Your last sentence also has me baffled. How else are we supposed to go about explaining the unexplained? Myth and superstition have not proven to be a good source of knowledge and scientific discovery for human beings in the past. Logic has always prevailed as the best means of discovery. It is the only way to argue or debate... Anything else would just equate to an unfounded opinion, which means nothing. That old saying about how everybody can have their own opinion is true, but it does not mean the opinion should be taken seriously.

On the topic of God debates though:

I have never seen a debate between an atheist and a theist in which the theist did not specifically want some sort of reason in which God could not/does not exist. This type of logic is flawed, as most of the major religions are set up in such a way that disproving the existence of God is impossible to do. It's like if I were to come up with a theory of invisible anal leprechauns or some shit, but make the theory state that there was no way to detect the anal leprechauns. You can't prove me wrong, so I must be right... right? Wrong. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, for which religion has none. That is why debates between a theist and an atheist often become shouting matches. The theist will not concede to the notion that they COULD be wrong, so it is doomed to fail from the beginning.

edit:

Another thing I've seen in a lot of theist vs. atheist debates is the theist will sometimes take a shot at certain theories generally considered to be atheist ideals such as the theory of evolution. This, again, is flawed logic. Even if evolution is not correct, dismantling it does nothing to explain the existence of God. The extraordinary claim still has no extraordinary evidence. This is generally not a well understood concept by theists.

 

Have you read the Quran or the Bible? I find many parts far fetched, but I do find pieces where science is at a point where undiscovered science was written about in them.

i.e. "The flesh before the bone" in the Quran. I

"Salt not mixing with water"- the method of examining the separating properties of fresh water and salt water at the time were not

So my belief is based off of this.

Religion will always exist, mostly due to the need to group and conform through evolution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html

& as for my "explain the unexplained" statement, if you cannot believe in a higher power, then I of course expect a person of disbelief in god to refute this statement with the argument that it is illogical because logic reigns supreme. I agree, and I disagree. Of course a person that is so set on no god, I will not and cannot argue adamant thought, so just note that it is impossible to argue because our relative mindsets are set as stone with two different ideas on life.

However, an argument is pointless over here (as aforementioned).

But Ivy Bridge, I agree with you last two paragraphs most definitely.

 

Nobody can win because nobody knows for certain, it's exactly as it says, a belief. The furthest it could go would be one having the stronger, more convincing argument. An argument free of fallacies etc.

 

It's possible, but the person won't admit they have been convinced/converted head-on, because of their pride.

Hell, before I stopped coming to Sythe for a while, back when I first made my account in the 08's, I had been arguing viciously with other atheist members of this community over the existence of the Christian God. Of course, I was backed into a corner with no evidence/etc/etc to provide as to his existence or to why I believed so I just said that "It's faith. You just know he's real."

Of course, now that I look back on it, I believe I was arguing with Shredderbeam, and he had actually changed me from a Christian to an atheist, though I never admitted it to anyone on these forums at the end that I was wrong.

 

Grats on the conversion
Read up on Pascal's wager

 

Oh, I have - and it's the most ridiculous argument out there.

That argument is basically saying, Christianity vs Atheism.

Why not a Hindu? Muslim? x1000 of other religions?

I'd rather not be held down by religious binds instead of being restricted by doctrine and having that 1/1000+ chance that my religion is correct.

 

But you do, nonetheless, have the authority to choose the most "logical" religion.
But I forgot to agree with your statement about not being able to back your prior religion.

The argument is not saying Christanity vs. Atheism.

The basis is religion vs. atheism.

Which is worse with these conditions:
-50/50 chance of higher power
-1/x chance of choosing correct religion if chosen at random (x being greater than 1, however many religions there are)
-Correct religion if God= gain all/lose none
-Incorrect religion/disbelief if God= lose all
-No belief in God/belief in God if no God= lose nothing/gain nothing

Simple math dictates your chances are better at gaining benefits if belief in God simply based on probability/outcomes.

 

There is no 'logical' religion imo. All religions were created by others for power/money/etc or because that's what X individual believed.

I'll follow my own path, not a religion's.

 

Actually, the three main religions of the world: Judaism, Christianity and Islam were created for the betterment of society. They were manipulated soon after the founders died for personal gain.