• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Defense of Religion [W:331 & 426]

zyzygy said:
The religious can believe whatever they like. It's when they try to impose their beliefs on others that causes the problems.
Click to expand...

LOL...define impose...SMH...
 
Elvira said:
LOL...define impose...SMH...
Click to expand...

For example.. pass laws that restrict the selling of alcohol on Sunday, because that is the day of worship. Or, restrict the use of alcohol at all, because they don't like it due to their religious beliefs.

Or, try to impose laws about marriage, or divorce, or premarital sex, based on their religion.
 
zyzygy said:
The religious can believe whatever they like. It's when they try to impose their beliefs on others that causes the problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. As I said as long as it does not affect the life of others.
 
zyzygy said:
Don't you own a dictionary?
Click to expand...

Oh I know what the definition is...I was just wondering if you do, since you go after anyone here like a rabid dog who is not an atheist...
 
Hawkins said:
It's a matter of the validity of human witnessing. It is actually analogy to how you yourself will provide proof of what you did just yesterday. What you did in your 24 hours can hardly be evidenced. We can get to know what you did if you or a third person as a witness wrote down what you did for us to believe with faith. If the witness chooses to martyr himself to back up what has been written, I will believe what he said as there's no reason for him to kill himself in order to tell us a lie.

If 10 out of the 12 such witnesses are willing to die to back up what has been written about what you did yesterday, and provided that this is the only way to reach the truth (of what you did yesterday), there's no reason why a sane person should reject what has been written down.
Click to expand...

What a joke. You, by this ridiculous argument must therefore support isis. How many of them have flown planes into buildings or used their own lives to explode bombs. So you must believe that allah is the one true god and all of us infidels must die.

Thrown any homosexuals off buildings lately?

Which brings up another example. How many gays have died from persecution? Nice to know that you give so much support for the gay community.
 
Elvira said:
Oh I know what the definition is...I was just wondering if you do, since you go after anyone here like a rabid dog who is not an atheist...
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that. I just ask awkward questions.
 
Elvira said:
I wouldn't say that...you just ask irrelevant questions...
Click to expand...

I find the questions quite to the point. They do question your axioms though.
 
RAMOSS said:
I find the questions quite to the point. They do question your axioms though.
Click to expand...

If I'm wrong and I ever do meet God then I have some pertinent questions to put to him.
 
zyzygy said:
I wouldn't say that. I just ask awkward questions.
Click to expand...

People are so awkward about trivial things like evidence!

Why don't these people just damned well believe.
 
wellwisher said:
If you consider the ten commandments,...
Click to expand...

These were attempts to a regulated social life that came out from goat herders 2,500 years ago that knew nothing about nothing and still thought lightnings were proof of the anger of a deity.

If in the 21st Century you choose to live by a book that was written 2,500 years ago, even if it's very likely it has been devised, annotated and revised several dozens or hundreds of times since then, then we know that you have shut off your rational mind for the benefit of following and being a sheeple to an ideology that you don't want to question or challenge to figure out its validity.

All religious people go through this step... to shut off their mind for the benefit of being accepted in a specific social group, or for other reasons.

All religion is false by definition. Your stance is that you agree that is all false but you have accepted falseness as truth for yourself, which is a sad and a wrong thing to do.
 
soylentgreen said:
What a joke. You, by this ridiculous argument must therefore support isis. How many of them have flown planes into buildings or used their own lives to explode bombs. So you must believe that allah is the one true god and all of us infidels must die.

Thrown any homosexuals off buildings lately?

Which brings up another example. How many gays have died from persecution? Nice to know that you give so much support for the gay community.
Click to expand...


You are confused and comparing apples and oranges. ISIS are never eye-witnesses of the god they claimed. They didn't die for what they witnesses with their eyes. You are such a joke to fail to speculate the difference.
 
Hawkins said:
You are confused and comparing apples and oranges. ISIS are never eye-witnesses of the god they claimed. They didn't die for what they witnesses with their eyes. You are such a joke to fail to speculate the difference.
Click to expand...

No one has seen god for the simple reason that god does not exist. There are empty claims and there are people so blinded by a belief that they die for it. I feel sorry for them.
 
devildavid said:
No one has seen god for the simple reason that god does not exist. There are empty claims and there are people so blinded by a belief that they die for it. I feel sorry for them.
Click to expand...


It's still apples and oranges. If humans haven't encountered any Kangaroo before the discovery of Australia, does it mean that Kangaroo didn't exist before that? If a human first saw Kangaroo in Australia then came back to tell its existence, is it an empty claim?

True and false of this kind are decided by the validity of the human witnessing!

If God exists and has a good reason to hide behind, the only way for humans to reach the truth of His existence is by believing the valid accounts of witnessing. Even under the circumstance that it can be a lie, still the only way you can hit such a truth (in the case that it's a truth) is by believing in human accounts of witnessing. There's no other way round.
 
Last edited:
Hawkins said:
It's still apples and oranges. If humans haven't encountered any Kangaroo before the discovery of Australia, does it mean that Kangaroo didn't exist before that? If a human first saw Kangaroo in Australia then came back to tell its existence, is it an empty claim?
Click to expand...

A kangaroo is a physical being. What is god made of? I can claim to have seen a unicorn. Why is my claim any more or less valid than claims of seeing god?
 
devildavid said:
A kangaroo is a physical being. What is god made of? I can claim to have seen a unicorn. Why is my claim any more or less valid than claims of seeing god?
Click to expand...

So do you mean that this universe or multiverse must have only physical being for the perception of your senses?

You can claim whatever, but 10 out of the 12 disciples of Jesus martyred themselves to back up their claims. How about you?

The difference between a fabricated unicorn and a valid claim lies in the validity of the testimony/witnessing itself.

Moreover, unicorn is an inactive being subject to human encounter, if no humans encountered and left with serious testimonies, it's safe to assume its non-existence. However God is an active being and can have a will with ability to hide behind.

Your analogy is still apples and oranges.
 
Last edited:
Hawkins said:
So do you mean that this universe or multiverse must have only physical being for the perception of your senses?

You can claim whatever, but 10 out of the 12 disciples of Jesus martyred themselves to back up their claims. How about you?

The difference between a fabricated unicorn and a valid claim lies in the validity of the testimony/witnessing itself.

Moreover, unicorn is an inactive being subject to human encounter, if no humans encountered and left with serious testimonies, it's safe to assume its non-existence. However God is an active being and can have a will with ability to hide behind.

Your analogy is still apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Witness/testimony/martyrdom is not valid evidence for the existence of anything. Everything must be able to be verified independently and hold up to testing of the evidence. Otherwise, it is just words.
 
Hawkins said:
You are confused and comparing apples and oranges. ISIS are never eye-witnesses of the god they claimed. They didn't die for what they witnesses with their eyes. You are such a joke to fail to speculate the difference.
Click to expand...

You contradict yourself . your words;
If 10 out of the 12 such witnesses are willing to die to back up what has been written about what you did yesterday, and provided that this is the only way to reach the truth (of what you did yesterday), there's no reason why a sane person should reject what has been written down.
Click to expand...

Either you are admitting you are not a sane person, or your denying the reality that isis members to martyr themselves,or you are contradicting yourself and coming up with a reason to reject what they have written down.
 
Last edited:
Hawkins said:
It's still apples and oranges. If humans haven't encountered any Kangaroo before the discovery of Australia, does it mean that Kangaroo didn't exist before that? If a human first saw Kangaroo in Australia then came back to tell its existence, is it an empty claim?

True and false of this kind are decided by the validity of the human witnessing!

If God exists and has a good reason to hide behind, the only way for humans to reach the truth of His existence is by believing the valid accounts of witnessing. Even under the circumstance that it can be a lie, still the only way you can hit such a truth (in the case that it's a truth) is by believing in human accounts of witnessing. There's no other way round.
Click to expand...

The trouble i find with this arguement is that you are not giving a good reason for anyone to believe a god exists. You are asking us to have faith in something someone says.

The arguement here is not does a god exist. The arguement is what is faith and why do some need it.
 
Hawkins said:
It's still apples and oranges. If humans haven't encountered any Kangaroo before the discovery of Australia, does it mean that Kangaroo didn't exist before that? If a human first saw Kangaroo in Australia then came back to tell its existence, is it an empty claim?

True and false of this kind are decided by the validity of the human witnessing!

If God exists and has a good reason to hide behind, the only way for humans to reach the truth of His existence is by believing the valid accounts of witnessing. Even under the circumstance that it can be a lie, still the only way you can hit such a truth (in the case that it's a truth) is by believing in human accounts of witnessing. There's no other way round.
Click to expand...

Nobody imagined that there were kangaroos before they were discovered. Let alone kangaroos with magic powers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom