Theists cannot debate objectivly........

J

jusmeig

Registered Senior Member
Angery bible bashers and crazy koran yeilding fanatics please refrain from attacking me...I am just asking a few questions. Building on my last post I noticed a few points I would like to degress on. They are simple:

If somebody is a member of a religion, they agree with the teachings of that religion. This is not in dispute?

As a result of their faith their views and opinions tend to clash with other religions that they are not members of. This is not in dispute?

Obviously if somebody believes in a religion and therefore a god of some sort, they cannot possibly hope to argue objectivly with either a member of a different religion or an atheist or agnostic?

My point is simple. Many of the posts raise issues about the existence of a god, or the validity of a religion. The members of the religion under fire turn to the holy books THEY believe in for answers and justification. But if you need blind faith to follow a religion....how can you argue a point objectivly. I would argue that atheists and agnostics are the only members of sciforums that can take a step back and look at religion as a whole....rather than letting their faith effect their judgement. I invite you to prove me wrong.........

Jus
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
My point is simple. Many of the posts raise issues about the existence of a god, or the validity of a religion. The members of the religion under fire turn to the holy books THEY believe in for answers and justification.
Click to expand...
I agree; your point is simple.
 
jusmeig:

<i>Obviously if somebody believes in a religion and therefore a god of some sort, they cannot possibly hope to argue objectivly with either a member of a different religion or an atheist or agnostic? </i>

I don't find that obvious. There are many religious people who are quite capable of objective discussion. They are well aware of the limits of their religion and the limits of objective proof.
 
Hi James R,

How would you define or explain the limits of a religion? Surly if there is a point where religion fails to provide some sort of spiritual guidance, then the individual would either change religion or turn into someone like me.....who constantly probes and looks for answers.

As I said members of a religion have blind faith, as that is a prerequisite of being a member of an organised religion, due to the lack of provable tangible evidence. How can someone who believes in a system, and is therfore dependant on that system, possibly hope to view other religious systems with a fully open mind?

I see a huge contradiction in what you are saying.....

Jus
 
I recognize that as a christian I dont look very objectively at (especially) Islam, or other religions, but it is possible to know that sometimes even my religion doesnt have all the answers (for instance I'd still like to find out how the light came into being when God said 'let there be light')

I dont agree that athiests can take a step back and look at a religion as a whole either because often they dont understand any or all of it and some are afraid of the unknown.....others have had bad experiences with individual christians and have "painted all christians with the same brush" (ie thinks all christians are like that one person)
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
As I said members of a religion have blind faith, as that is a prerequisite of being a member of an organised religion, due to the lack of provable tangible evidence.
Click to expand...
You're tilting at windmills. Have you ever actually taken the time to red anything by folks like Thomas Aquinas or Albert Schweitzer or Spinoza?
 
Ok...

The proposition of an argument suggests an objection to a decided opinion between two parties. This makes any argument subjective to the views of the opposing parties involved. You state a simple fact: "Theists cannot argue objectively." The same holds true: "People cannot argue objectively."

Even atheists find arguements involving subjective points of view regarding the topic of religion.

What is your real point? Don't argue with theists? Or, don't argue at all?
 
Originally posted by jusmeig


My point is simple. Many of the posts raise issues about the existence of a god, or the validity of a religion. The members of the religion under fire turn to the holy books THEY believe in for answers and justification. But if you need blind faith to follow a religion....how can you argue a point objectivly. I would argue that atheists and agnostics are the only members of sciforums that can take a step back and look at religion as a whole....rather than letting their faith effect their judgement. I invite you to prove me wrong.........

Blind faith is one aspect of following a religion but if that is not developed it soon vanishes, some people become religious through experiences such as near-death, some come to the conclusion that life comes from life, some come to the conclusion after having heard someone speak or read someones words. There are different levels of understanding God, we are none of us, equal to anybody else, we are individuals. There are scientists (Newton) who come to the conclusion that there must be a gigantic brain behind this cosmic manifestation, that the nature and make up of man is way too complicated to have derived by chance.
There are so many ways individuals come to the platform of God-consciousness.

You believe you can look at religion as a whole, but you knew nothing of the vedas which encompasses all religions.
Can you tell me, without being disrespectfull or sarcastic, what the aim of religion is, as put foreward by God or his most confidential devotess, i.e. Jesus Christ?

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
Fluidity,

I understand your point. But the ability to argue a point can be objective, hence the reason the word was written into the dicionary?. If there was no solution to every argument then I would imagine we would be still hunting wild animals on the plains. Arguement can also be described as debate....would you apply the same criteria for debate?

Jan,

Just because the followers of the Vedas believe the Vedas encompasses all religion...does not mean that is so. Just because I say something does not mean it is so. The question above was not to test my knowledge of religions, I am taking religion as a whole. The idea...not the names and places!

The point stands. It is this simple. I like blue cars. If I have an argument about my favourite color of car my opinion and actions will be affected by my inherent like of the color blue. This is human nature......By my own admission I cannot explain god or religion...therefore I believe I can take a step back and look at religion as a whole.
 
Originally posted by James R
jusmeig:

..There are many religious people who are quite capable of objective discussion. They are well aware of the limits of their religion and the limits of objective proof.
Click to expand...

Don't u conradict urself..? ....and proving that u are wrong!
 
Originally posted by jusmeig
Jan,

Just because the followers of the Vedas believe the Vedas encompasses all religion...does not mean that is so.

That is not how it percieved, you are just trying to blanket everything with a statement. At least try and understand what you are talking about, before you go blazing in.
It would help your case as far as being objective goes.

Just because I say something does not mean it is so.

Evidently.

The question above was not to test my knowledge of religions, I am taking religion as a whole. The idea...not the names and places!

Why do you think there are names and places?
You are taking religion as a whole, fine, but first understand what religion is, like i said it will help your waning by the post, objective image.

If I have an argument about my favourite color of car my opinion and actions will be affected by my inherent like of the color blue.

That is you, but you cannot say everybody is like that without coming across as a fool.

This is human nature......

Human nature is alot more complex than you give credit for.

By my own admission I cannot explain god or religion...therefore I believe I can take a step back and look at religion as a whole.

So by being ignorant of something, you have the best veiw of the whole of the thing you are ignorant of.

Such nonsense! :rolleyes:

Love

Jan Ardena.
Click to expand...
 
My point is simple. Many of the posts raise issues about the existence of a god, or the validity of a religion. The members of the religion under fire turn to the holy books THEY believe in for answers and justification. But if you need blind faith to follow a religion....how can you argue a point objectivly. I would argue that atheists and agnostics are the only members of sciforums that can take a step back and look at religion as a whole....rather than letting their faith effect their judgement. I invite you to prove me wrong.........
Click to expand...

I won't attempt to prove you wrong, however I don't have to agree. There are scholars that have researched the bible and have not been convinced of secular arguments against the (validity) of Jesus the Christ.

("Those findings increased scholarly confidence in the reliability of the Bible. William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."

Coinciding with the papyri discoveries, an abundance of other manuscripts came to light (over 24,000 copies of early New Testament manuscripts are known to be in existence today). The historian Luke wrote of "authentic evidence" concerning the resurrection. Sir William Ramsay, who spent 15 years attempting to undermine Luke credentials as a historian, and to refute the reliability of the New Testament, finally concluded: "Luke is a historian of the first rank . . . This author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. "


THE RESURRECTION IS A FACT
Professor Thomas Arnold, for 14 years a headmaster of Rugby, author of the famous, History of Rome, and appointed to the chair of modern history at Oxford, was well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: "I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which God bath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead." Brooke Foss Westcott, an English scholar, said: "raking all the evidence together, it is not too much to say that there is no historic incident better or more variously supported than the resurrection of Christ. Nothing but the antecedent assumption that it must be false could have suggested the idea of deficiency in the proof of it."



I claim to be an historian. My approach to Classics is historical. And I tell you that the evidence for the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ is better authenticated than most of the facts of ancient history . . .
E. M. Blaiklock
Professor of Classics
Auckland University

REAL PROOF: THE DISCIPLES' LIVES
But the most telling testimony of all must be the lives of those early Christians. We must ask ourselves: What caused them to go everywhere telling the message of the risen Christ?
Had there been any visible benefits accrued to them from their efforts--prestige, wealth, increased social status or material benefits--we might logically attempt to account for their actions, for their whole-hearted and total allegiance to this "risen Christ ."

As a reward for their efforts, however, those early Christians were beaten, stoned to death, thrown to the lions, tortured and crucified. Every conceivable method was used to stop them from talking.
Yet, they laid down their lives as the ultimate proof of their complete confidence in the truth of their message.)"
 
Last edited:
So you'd like to see the beginning of the universe, eh?

Originally posted by New Life
I recognize that as a christian I dont look very objectively at (especially) Islam, or other religions, but it is possible to know that sometimes even my religion doesnt have all the answers (for instance I'd still like to find out how the light came into being when God said 'let there be light')
Click to expand...

Check out this article and image from the Hubble website:

Scientists Find Faint Objects with Hubble that May Have Ended the Universe's 'Dark Ages'

And Then There Was Light

Pretty neat, huh? :)
 
jusmeig,

But if you need blind faith to follow a religion....how can you argue a point objectivly.
Click to expand...
I invite you to prove me wrong.........
Click to expand...

1 John 4:12
"12 No one has seen God at any time; if we love one another, God abides in us, and His love is perfected in us. "

1 John 4:7-8
"7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God.
8 The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love. "

If everyone Loved one another, wouldn't the world be a great and peaceful place to live? So why doesn't the whole world become Christian? Not only for God's sake, but even much more for our sake! I have no blind faith, I just can't NOT agree with what is written in the Bible.
 
New Life,

I recognize that as a christian I dont look very objectively at (especially) Islam, or other religions, but it is possible to know that sometimes even my religion doesnt have all the answers (for instance I'd still like to find out how the light came into being when God said 'let there be light')
Click to expand...
He spoke a Word with Faith. If you want the very mechanism of it, Christianism has the answer although you must be very mature to unerstand it. Your mind must be almost (or even totally) renewed before you learn such thing. But I give you some of that knowledge, although you might not understand it. The spiritual realm is an eternal "now" that is molded as we live our lives. The spiritual realm changes as we make choices. What God has promised us is there. We can choose to accept it. Once we accept it and believe it is true (surrender and faith, respectively), it will start to happen. It is a little bit complex, but see if you can understand it with this little sentence:

"Faith is the eyes of the spirit.";)
 
Re: So you'd like to see the beginning of the universe, eh?

Originally posted by Nehushta
Check out this article and image from the Hubble website:

Scientists Find Faint Objects with Hubble that May Have Ended the Universe's 'Dark Ages'

And Then There Was Light

Pretty neat, huh? :)
Click to expand...

Very cool.......I actually read about that in the Discover magazine but forgot!

Truthseeker;

I agree that all things will be revealed by the Spirit......and I have the faith that God created the light, I just want to find out the mechanisims of it.............however thank you for the reminder :D
 
truthseeker,

He spoke a Word with Faith. If you want the very mechanism of it, Christianism has the answer although you must be very mature to unerstand it. Your mind must be almost (or even totally) renewed before you learn such thing. But I give you some of that knowledge, although you might not understand it. The spiritual realm is an eternal "now" that is molded as we live our lives. The spiritual realm changes as we make choices. What God has promised us is there. We can choose to accept it. Once we accept it and believe it is true (surrender and faith, respectively), it will start to happen. It is a little bit complex, but see if you can understand it with this little sentence:

"Faith is the eyes of the spirit."
Click to expand...
The blind trying to lead the blind.
 
Cris,

The blind trying to lead the blind.
Click to expand...

Provided by Lykan:
"The great Taoist master Chuang Tzu once dreamt that he was a butterfly fluttering here and there. Suddenly, he awoke and found himself laying there, a person once again. But then he thought to himself, "Was I before a man who dreamt about being a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly who dreams about being a man?" "

Look at a mirror...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top