• 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!

Can religion be "debated"?

I think your assumption is correct. Of course, I live in Colorado,and have a med license, so it's all legal. It's where my partners and I experiment with new hybrids for our dispensaries. Some of it which we never release for public consumption. One lil toke and BOOM for hours!

That's awesome, man...I'm a medical user, which has gotten a lot easier up here in the last few months. :) If you're a breeding expert, you ought to come up with a potent strain that will grow heavy in the short Canadian grow season, you'd make a fortune. Hydroponics are great, but out of reach for most growers, technically and financially. With every Canadian household allowed to grow 4 plants, a good outdoor strain that will grow well here would be very well received. Come up with four, and you're golden - that way people could grow one of each, and avoid getting too used to one strain.
 
That's awesome, man...I'm a medical user, which has gotten a lot easier up here in the last few months. :) If you're a breeding expert, you ought to come up with a potent strain that will grow heavy in the short Canadian grow season, you'd make a fortune. Hydroponics are great, but out of reach for most growers, technically and financially. With every Canadian household allowed to grow 4 plants, a good outdoor strain that will grow well here would be very well received. Come up with four, and you're golden - that way people could grow one of each, and avoid getting too used to one strain.

I'm pretty good at growing ( 40 plus years ), but my partners/friends are the real experts. If you google 'Charlotte's Web' ( the strain for child seizures ), those 4 brothers are very good life long friends. I put up most of the dough for the R and D, and in return they made me a silent partner in 3 med dispensaries. ( a real cash cow )...But the strain was/is all non-profit to help the kids. If your unfamilar with, I suggest you google it. People from all over the country are lining up to save their children. We can't grow it fast enough,and that is sad.
 
Discussed, yes, debated? This world still holds many unexplained phenomena and a lot remains unknown. Religion covers some of those. I do agree that debating or even discussing with those hard headed either believers or non-believers is a waste of time. I do think civil discussions can be had with others. Science can only take us so far, then we enter the realm of possibilities and probabilities. Even in science, what was a scientific fact years ago get changed, even totally reversed, updated, to a state it no longer applies. Much of science is theories that work until they don't. Some stand the test of time, others end up on the trash heap of history.

Most of us westerners want a scientific rational explanation for the ways of the universe. We won't believe anything unless we can see it, feel it, touch it, think it makes sense. Others are more open to other possibilities, more willing to accept the unknown and at times the unexplainable. Some of this falls into religion, I suppose some does not.

In the end, it all depends on whom one is discussing or debating. No one likes their beliefs to be questioned, challenged. You can look at this site with all the different political beliefs, ideology, philosophy. Each of us are sure we're right, the other wrong. Those who believe in religion and those who do not, are the same. But you do have a few where discussions are possible. Debating, I think is too strong a word.

I mean, I'm typing, to acknowledge your well said response, but I have nothing much of value to add...I think you said it all. I got nothing. Good post. :)
 
I'm pretty good at growing ( 40 plus years ), but my partners/friends are the real experts. If you google 'Charlotte's Web' ( the strain for child seizures ), those 4 brothers are very good life long friends. I put up most of the dough for the R and D, and in return they made me a silent partner in 3 med dispensaries. ( a real cash cow )...But the strain was/is all non-profit to help the kids. If your unfamilar with, I suggest you google it. People from all over the country are lining up to save their children. We can't grow it fast enough,and that is sad.

I know all about Charlotte's Web. Say thank you from some random anonymous guy on the Internet for me. And thank you.
 
I know all about Charlotte's Web. Say thank you from some random anonymous guy on the Internet for me. And thank you.

Thanks Nate. Helping those poor kids and seeing their parent's relief is something you really cant fully put into words. I've been 'blessed' more than I probably deserve in so many ways, it feels good to give back, and I have a lot of opportunity and resources to do so fortunately. We are currently expanding on some new land we purchased, so the supply will be greatly expanded in the near future.
 
New day, and I think we've got the topic covered, so just a couple things.

Ya, sometimes you go a little wild. I can say that, because sometimes so do I. Maybe at least you and I will give a bit of thought before we rip into someone the next time...hehe... I think threads like this do help - any time people who disagree talk it out, versus come to blows, it helps.

I definitely call out "my own"...there's a reason Elvira won't talk to me directly anymore...hehe... I've had it out with others on here as well, and it's ended well. It doesn't always have to be a nightmare....but if it turns out that way the odd time, while the majority end well, one can make assumptions about where the issue lies.

Hoppy beer...depends. I like hoppy beer, but sometimes people go overboard. To me hops tastes like grapefruit, there's definitely a line between "yum" and "too much, simmer down, you lunatic!". I find myself wanting to put sugar in beer that is too hoppy - but, Canadians are known to have a sweeter palate than Americans (something that can be seen in our candy bars vs. yours, for example...and our iced tea). But I've had extremely well balanced, high hops beers that have been really good.

I tend to like smoother beer, though... I love wheat beers from German and white beer from Belgium - Hoegaarden is a treat. I also like red ales, and there are a lot of local brewers that do an awesome job out here. If you're ever up this way, check out Church Key brewery...that guy is like Beautiful Minds, when it comes to beer. Really liking his scotch ale for something different. He made this cranberry ale one time, only available in kegs...we had a party just so we could drink it. Amazing stuff.

But, I will maintain, if you need a go to beer that is always reliably good, goes with anything, and can be drank a case at a time, when the occasion calls for it, you can do no better than Labatt 50. Up here that's considered "old man" beer, technically I'm about 30 years too young to be drinking it, but it's really good: not too sweet, not too hoppy, not too anything, light tasting, but still 5%, so you know you're still drinking beer...hehe... I love all kinds of beer (well, other than coffee porter, I do NOT understand that combination), but that's my anchor. That or Steam Whistle, which is way more trendy, but tastes very similar, and is easier to find at a bar.

If you do come up here, don't bother with Molson Canadian. I know, I know, it's got the word Canadian in it, so it should be the best beer in the world. It's not. The "Canadian" refers to the fact that it's made with fermented Canada goose piss, and that it's brewed using water from the Don Valley river, one of our most polluted, inner city rivers.

Um, let's get this straight once and for all because I am only going to repeat it once...the reason I refuse to respond to you is because...

What purpose would that serve, except to prove who the bigger ass is? Challenge the belief, not the believer...when it gets personal, I tend to ignore whatever is said after that...they've lost my attention...

No other reason...and I am not "your own" in any way, shape, or form...I am nothing like you and I thank God for that...I do not like know it alls, I do not like buttinskies who interject themselves into conversations that don't concern them, I do not like people who act like jackasses...end of story...:2wave:
 
Say, did you take any science classes while in college, or even a philosophy of science class? It certainly doesn't sound like you know the first thing about how science actually works.

Argument of the Stone Fallacy... You have claimed 'absurdity' without providing a counterargument...

And yes, I'm quite familiar with the "popular" way of defining science, but there are flaws in that way of defining it. For starters, it attempts to make religion into science, which leads to irrational conclusions.
 
Um, let's get this straight once and for all because I am only going to repeat it once...the reason I refuse to respond to you is because...



No other reason...and I am not "your own" in any way, shape, or form...I am nothing like you and I thank God for that...I do not like know it alls, I do not like buttinskies who interject themselves into conversations that don't concern them, I do not like people who act like jackasses...end of story...:2wave:

Elvira, you stopped talking to me when I questioned you about how your hateful rhetoric regarding LGBT people lined up to God's message of love. If you're going to come out of hiding, and address me directly, at least tell the truth...for old time's sake.

You are also the biggest poster of "I'm right, everyone else is wrong" threads in this entire forum.

You talk about "Christian" love, but join in the ugly, hateful pile-ons that take place in these forums, against people who dare disagree with you. The expression "wolf in sheep's clothing" comes to mind.

With all that in mind, I hope you'll understand when I say I couldn't care less what you think of me, whether you like what I say or not, or if you ever talk to me again. :shrug: I hope you find meaning and happiness in the world, as I do for every single human being...and I hope that when you find it, it will fill whatever gap you have in your life that causes you to trample on the meaning and happiness of others. But how you have presented in these forums makes your opinion irrelevant to me. It's simply white noise.

All the best, Elvira. You're right...you're nothing like me.
 
Deliberately posting this in the Theology sub forum, as this is not an invitation to discuss whether or not God exists, which god exists, and honestly, given the way the Beliefs / Skepticisms forum is going these days, I thought it might be nice to discuss the subject in a forum with heightened civility rules.

My question is: Can religion be debated?

Given that:

- Religion is faith driven. (Much of what we believe has no available "scientific proof")
- Every religion believes in their heart that they have it more right than anyone else (otherwise, why belong to that religion).
- Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject and can be provided no
proof that would make sense in the context of how they see things - if they are willing to be openminded enough to consider what
you're saying.

I would suggest no. Discussed...sure, to a point, if everyone remains respectful...but not debated.

What do you think? If you think no, what would make it worthwhile to do it anyway? If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing. :)

Let's see:
1) Faith - no.
2) Philosophical grounding - yes.
3) Logical basis - yes.
4) Historical basis - yes.
5) Spiritual stuff - no.

You can make mixtures of the above, but I think as soon as faith and/or spirituality get pulled into the debate it usually becomes unworkable.
 
Let's see:
1) Faith - no.
2) Philosophical grounding - yes.
3) Logical basis - yes.
4) Historical basis - yes.
5) Spiritual stuff - no.

You can make mixtures of the above, but I think as soon as faith and/or spirituality get pulled into the debate it usually becomes unworkable.

Yeah..I agree, mostly. Except maybe logical basis...I don't think you'll find too many theists trying to argue logical basis. I certainly wouldn't, since religion is faith based, and faith is belief in the absence of proof, which is inherently illogical.

Historical basis can be tricky too, as history is sometimes requires interpretation to understand context, but...I guess that makes it debatable, so sure.

I would argue, though, that each of these are better discussion topics than debate topics, given how easily people tend to get offended when you tell them their world philosophy is wrong, as happens in religious debate. :)
 
Yeah..I agree, mostly. Except maybe logical basis...I don't think you'll find too many theists trying to argue logical basis. I certainly wouldn't, since religion is faith based, and faith is belief in the absence of proof, which is inherently illogical.

Historical basis can be tricky too, as history is sometimes requires interpretation to understand context, but...I guess that makes it debatable, so sure.

I would argue, though, that each of these are better discussion topics than debate topics, given how easily people tend to get offended when you tell them their world philosophy is wrong, as happens in religious debate. :)

I totally agree that it's more fruitful to discuss these things rather than argue/debate them. I engage the topics to learn other perspectives. I try not to be confrontational, but I'll certainly push back if I think it's necessary.

I agree faith transcends logic and history, but people here do argue both sides using them. That's generally confined to debating doctrine rather than faith, however.
 
No it can't be unless you want to talk about ghost. And in logic that means your crazy. What a sick sad world...
 
There are many different theological theories out there. Some only slightly different while others are way off in left field. But just like all theories, not only should they be debated (A discussion involving opposing points; an argument, to consider something; deliberate.) But they most. It is only through spirited and honest debate that our faith can be strengthened, tested by fire. But it only works if both side know that they can be wrong. It was only once I accepted the fact that o could be wrong about god existence that I truly believed in his existence. There is proof of his existence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Deliberately posting this in the Theology sub forum, as this is not an invitation to discuss whether or not God exists, which god exists, and honestly, given the way the Beliefs / Skepticisms forum is going these days, I thought it might be nice to discuss the subject in a forum with heightened civility rules.

My question is: Can religion be debated?

Given that:

- Religion is faith driven. (Much of what we believe has no available "scientific proof")
- Every religion believes in their heart that they have it more right than anyone else (otherwise, why belong to that religion).
- Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject and can be provided no
proof that would make sense in the context of how they see things - if they are willing to be openminded enough to consider what
you're saying.

I would suggest no. Discussed...sure, to a point, if everyone remains respectful...but not debated.

What do you think? If you think no, what would make it worthwhile to do it anyway? If you think yes, tell me what I'm missing. :)

I agree with you.
 
Religion can be debated if you restrict the debate to remain within the scope of religious documents. For example, if everyone agreed to use the Bible as the source for a debate, and back up your ideas and opinions with just bible quotes, then debate is possible.

If you were having a science debate, about the origins of the universe, one is expected to stay within the cosmology and astral physics science literature. Problems begin when unrelated data sources are used; science fiction and political science. But if everyone is staying on target and using only the literature within that area of specialty, then the debate can be fun and educational.

When I lived in Tennessee, as a young man, I had friends at work who were elders in their small nondenominational Churches. They were bible toters and liked to discuss and debate the bible. I had my own ideas, but I had never fully read the bible. I would discuss why idea but I could not back up my ideas with bible quotes, like the rest of the debaters. I lacked bible proof, using the debate rules for religious debate. They would politely ask me to come to a study group and learn.

I decided to read and research the bible, so I could support my ideas by their bible quoting rules. I found it was possible to debate religion, with everyone staying on topic, but from different angles. This format allowed us to teach each other using a common support data base.

What I found is if you use the common data set rule for religious debate, in science discussion forums, you will get censored. The moment they see bible quotes, someone will cry foul with the staff. In science sites one required to discard common Bible data rules and allow open data source debate, using data that is not even appropriate to the topic. This never teaches anyone anything, accept opinions without any source of proof.
 
I find debating religion on the internet in a forum, to be a total waste of time. I much prefer to spend my energy in my own personal study and in prayer than squander it on the likes of this forum. Occasionally there is a thread that pops up that isn't about debate but subject matter that is more spiritual. They are far and in between.
 
I agree with you. But there are two variants. Variant 1 is when a person is sincerely in two minds and is asking for explanations. Variant 2 is more common when they send a provocative message and then ... "forget" to follow the thread. This is sometimes probably to cause a heated discussion or confrontation among the believers.
 
I find debating religion on the internet in a forum, to be a total waste of time. I much prefer to spend my energy in my own personal study and in prayer than squander it on the likes of this forum. Occasionally there is a thread that pops up that isn't about debate but subject matter that is more spiritual. They are far and in between.

Good to study and be obedient yes! We must also Proclaim "Him" the Most High! Shabbat Shalom
 
My question is: Can religion be debated?

Sure, religion can be debated. There are many religions and thus many (sometimes radically conflicting) views on what is considered to be truth. A religious debate is one where one side argues for why their religious views are a closer approximation to truth than others.

In this regard, atheists could also engage in the debate and argue that faith alone is not knowledge and does not bring anyone closer to truth.

Bottom line, the noble purpose of the dialectic is to help uncover truth. Debating religion most certainly can be done and, indeed, yield value. Most of the time, however, emotions get in the way and the good effects are destroyed.
 
Sure, religion can be debated. There are many religions and thus many (sometimes radically conflicting) views on what is considered to be truth. A religious debate is one where one side argues for why their religious views are a closer approximation to truth than others.

In this regard, atheists could also engage in the debate and argue that faith alone is not knowledge and does not bring anyone closer to truth.

Bottom line, the noble purpose of the dialectic is to help uncover truth. Debating religion most certainly can be done and, indeed, yield value. Most of the time, however, emotions get in the way and the good effects are destroyed.

Hi...welcome to DP. Nice first post.

Of course, I'm gonna disagree... ;)

People of all faiths have faith because they are convinced their view of the world is the right view. Given that pretty much all religions require faith in something they cannot see or touch, there is no way to prove or disprove anything, to where the truth can be drawn out. All you get is the kind of fighting and ugliness that has existed between religions forever. And that's between folks who believe there is something beyond what science says there is...now throw atheists in the mix, who come at it from a totally different place and way of thinking, and it gets harder still.

It can be a fun donnybrook, but I haven't seen too much useful come out of these kind of brawls.
 
It can be a fun donnybrook, but I haven't seen too much useful come out of these kind of brawls.

As opposed to ALL the useful stuff that comes from debates about guns, climate, immigration, taxes, health care, republican, democrat, Obama, Trump, Bush, ....

:mrgreen:
 
My question is: Can religion be debated?
Yep.

Theologians have spent centuries discussing, debating, and arguing all sorts of religious topics.

One example is the development of the concept of the Trinity in Christianity. It did not spring forth, fully formed, from the New Testament in the year 40 CE; it took centuries of discussion (often heated) for theologians to decide how it worked. Even then, the Catholic and Orthodox churches had very different views on the Trinity.

Similarly, Eastern religions had many variations, and discussions between religions, between sects, and within sects. E.g. the Buddhist monk and logician Nagarjuna was largely responding to various theological and philosophical schools of thought, such as the Vedic traditions, the Sautrantika school, the Sarvastivada school, and so on.

In most cases, the debaters will rely on canonical works ("What did Buddha say?") as well as applying the inner logic of the religion ("The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone" - Origen circa 220 CE).


Debating with atheists is pointless because of a completely different / incompatible universal view of the subject and can be provided no proof that would make sense in the context of how they see things - if they are willing to be openminded enough to consider what you're saying.
Yeah, well. Dogmatism, motivated reasoning and so on are human tendencies, not religious tendencies. Being open-minded is hardly the exclusive province of materialists / atheists.
 
As opposed to ALL the useful stuff that comes from debates about guns, climate, immigration, taxes, health care, republican, democrat, Obama, Trump, Bush, ....

:mrgreen:

lol...fair point. I would counter with, at least common language and rules of logic can be used. People are unlikely to agree on these things, but at least they can be discussed. :)
 
Yep.

Theologians have spent centuries discussing, debating, and arguing all sorts of religious topics.

One example is the development of the concept of the Trinity in Christianity. It did not spring forth, fully formed, from the New Testament in the year 40 CE; it took centuries of discussion (often heated) for theologians to decide how it worked. Even then, the Catholic and Orthodox churches had very different views on the Trinity.

Similarly, Eastern religions had many variations, and discussions between religions, between sects, and within sects. E.g. the Buddhist monk and logician Nagarjuna was largely responding to various theological and philosophical schools of thought, such as the Vedic traditions, the Sautrantika school, the Sarvastivada school, and so on.

In most cases, the debaters will rely on canonical works ("What did Buddha say?") as well as applying the inner logic of the religion ("The God and Father, who holds the universe together, is superior to every being that exists, for he imparts to each one from his own existence that which each one is; the Son, being less than the Father, is superior to rational creatures alone" - Origen circa 220 CE).



Yeah, well. Dogmatism, motivated reasoning and so on are human tendencies, not religious tendencies. Being open-minded is hardly the exclusive province of materialists / atheists.


I agree with everything you've got here, Vis, but it's not really addressing my question - which is my fault for not being clearer.

What I mean is, debating between different views - you're talking about Christians debating with Christians, or Buddhists debating with Buddhists. That makes complete sense, and is a constant process, even today. But do you see a debate between a Christian and a Buddhist, ending in one or the other converting, or one saying to other "You know, you're right"?
 
I agree with everything you've got here, Vis, but it's not really addressing my question - which is my fault for not being clearer.

What I mean is, debating between different views - you're talking about Christians debating with Christians, or Buddhists debating with Buddhists. That makes complete sense, and is a constant process, even today. But do you see a debate between a Christian and a Buddhist, ending in one or the other converting, or one saying to other "You know, you're right"?

It does happen...here are just a few experiences...

Myanmar (Burma) — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

True Worship Unites People — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

“Every Scripture She Read Touched My Heart” — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

Hawaii — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

1990 Yearbook of Jehovah’s Witnesses — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY
 
Back
Top Bottom