Why have them?
I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.
It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?
An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?
A good point. We can only have a discussion if there is a starting point of shared thinking. But it seems that when it comes to religion, or issues dealing with strong believes like abortion, people keep on arguing anyways despite knowing that there'll be no satisfactory conclusion. Does proving your believes are superior really matter so much? What does that mean anyways other than an ego boost? What justifies the effort?I agree. First of all, there is no way to know. Second, the debaters do not share any common assumptions, one of the minimum requirements for a productive debate. It's like the abortion debate. As long as one side considers a fetus a person and the other does not, debate is fruitless.
Another good question. Thanks for bring it up, why do people kill for religion? I know in the past it's mostly due to misunderstanding. But nowadays? They can't claim ignorance, yet why do people feel their believes are superior and need to physically/verbally demonstrate such?It's incredible waste of time it seems. Thousands of years spent on it already and still ongoing.
But it's an important issue to a good amount of people--I mean, people kill for it, how is it not an important issue? Though you may believe neither side wins, there are people on sides who do want to 'win' and the issue is way beyond the debate of whether or not God exists.
Hmmm do most religions have logical inconsistencies? I'm not quite familiar with such...Yeah, I gave up on it a while ago. However, debates on religion are different, as there is stuff to argue about there, such as logical inconsistencies. Although I gave up on doing that too, actually.
Hmmm do most religions have logical inconsistencies? I'm not quite familiar with such...
Hmmm do most religions have logical inconsistencies? I'm not quite familiar with such...
Another good question. Thanks for bring it up, why do people kill for religion? I know in the past it's mostly due to misunderstanding. But nowadays? They can't claim ignorance, yet why do people feel their believes are superior and need to physically/verbally demonstrate such?
You know "Impossible is Nothing", the slogan?
It's one of those things that halfway gets to where a really good faith lies, except I don't know how to articulate it. Something about there being tests, and bigger tests and then there's the best test, the impossible. Take the other tests if you like, but here's the meaningful one...
Logically, the impossible is... impossible.
But, like, y'know: aim high, hit the middle; aim low, hit the ground... so aim at the impossible.
For symbolic purposes, it's stimulating.
And now we turn to the question of God. Sure, great, there isn't one, God, I mean, but still... faith will have some value for some reason. And spelling out the reason will look silly because you'll end up describing something pedestrian--like, "for Jimminy's sake, just love people, okay?"--when the purpose of the faith was not to be pedestrian, but to aim high.
Now don't go be all realist on me here, because realism itself is valueless without a particular faith, that reality can and will be appreciated. It can be gotten to be known.
I mean, no one appreciates reality. It's just what's real. People appreciate reality only if there's some particular value at work, and after a while they'll get to valuing the value too, and they'll end up with some kind of faith in some kind of perfection.
It's a jumble, but faith is meant to be: there's the thing, and then the value about the thing, and then the valued value about the thing, and it's all supposed to lie in the thing itself. It's meant to be a jumble, with the different layers adding different meanings to the other layers.
Maybe.
Anyway, it's supposed to mean that ruling out faith in God and debate about It's existence is one way of lessening the project of evaluating ourselves as... whatever we are.
A bit like saying, the Renaissance was, like, a couple hunnerd year ago now, something like, so what's with all the paintings lying around?
Or not.
Not really sure.
Why have them?
I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.
It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?
An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?
Why debate anything?
Because the experience of debating helps me to think through my position: is it logical? (if not the other person may help to point this out). Sometimes the other person has more information.
Who knows? I might change my mind.
Perhaps the problem is not with debating per se; the problem is entering into one-on-one debate with people whose minds are closed.
The explanation of why these arguments are unconvincing use assumptions that only atheists make.
The explanation of why these arguments are unconvincing use assumptions that only atheists make.