Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 08 Nov '10 05:18
    Been taking a look at your Spirituality forum here. Delusion & dishonesty is SOP on boards like these, course, but boy oh boy Debates is way better than Spirituality. Does this mean that generally that politics is a more honest arena than religion and theology?
  2. 08 Nov '10 05:47
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    Been taking a look at your Spirituality forum here. Delusion & dishonesty is SOP on boards like these, course, but boy oh boy Debates is way better than Spirituality. Does this mean that generally that politics is a more honest arena than religion and theology?
    There he is! He's the one who shot Lincoln!
  3. Subscriber kmax87
    You've got Kevin
    08 Nov '10 08:40 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    Been taking a look at your Spirituality forum here. Delusion & dishonesty is SOP on boards like these, course, but boy oh boy Debates is way better than Spirituality. Does this mean that generally that politics is a more honest arena than religion and theology?
    just wait till .... da da da.... FMF - PART 1 - The Phantom Menace Returns
  4. 08 Nov '10 10:18 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    Been taking a look at your Spirituality forum here. Delusion & dishonesty is SOP on boards like these, course, but boy oh boy Debates is way better than Spirituality. Does this mean that generally that politics is a more honest arena than religion and theology?
    posted in spirituality,

    Been taking a look at your Debates forum here. Delusion & dishonesty is SOP on boards like these of course, but boy oh boy Spirituality is way better than Debates. Does this mean that generally that religion and theology is a more honest arena than politics?

    seems to me you show an enviable propensity for seeing both sides of an argument.
  5. 08 Nov '10 18:06 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by John W Booth
    Been taking a look at your Spirituality forum here. Delusion & dishonesty is SOP on boards like these, course, but boy oh boy Debates is way better than Spirituality. Does this mean that generally that politics is a more honest arena than religion and theology?
    To put it plainly, theology isn't necessarily less interesting than politics, the difference however between this forum and spirituality is that here reason can be used as an appropriate tool to arrive at true conclusions, however in spirituality people will inevitably have positions which cannot be verified or refuted.
  6. 08 Nov '10 18:28 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    To put it plainly, politics isn't necessarily less interesting than theology, the difference however between this forum and spirituality is that here reason can be used as an appropriate tool to arrive at true conclusions, however in spirituality people will inevitably have positions which cannot be verified or refuted.
    How can you verify left verses right? Which is the better political position?

    Face it, both politics and religion reside mostly in the relm of belief. I can debate a left winger to death, or vice versa, and never change their mind about anything. I also think you do a diservice to those of faith by saying that their faith system is devoid of reason. Perhaps yours is but not mine.
  7. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    08 Nov '10 18:43 / 1 edit
    Similar to G-mo's point...

    Discussing spirituality strikes me as singularly uninteresting. What's really to discuss? Either you believe an unprovable event/truth/phenomenon XYZ or you don't. I'm not going to call spirituality irrational, but I'd say it's not really subject to rational debate.

    If I tell you that I believe XYZ because my father told me and his father told him etc. etc. etc., how can you possibly disprove that? Conversely, why would I expect you to adopt my view based on this unsupported assertion?
  8. 08 Nov '10 18:47 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    How can you verify left verses right? Which is the better political position?

    Face it, both politics and religion reside mostly in the relm of belief. I can debate a left winger to death, or vice versa, and never change their mind about anything. I also think you do a diservice to those of faith by saying that their faith system is devoid of reason. Perhaps yours is but not mine.
    How can you verify left verses right? Which is the better political position?
    This is far too general and simplistic, I wasn't referring to "left vs right", what I had in mind was far more specific, say, discussions on rights and responsibilities, or taxation, or civil liberties, etc, these are all areas in which different sides of the debate can verify their claims to an adequate standard.

    Face it, both politics and religion reside mostly in the relm of belief. I can debate a left winger to death, or vice versa, and never change their mind about anything. I also think you do a diservice to those of faith by saying that their faith system is devoid of reason. Perhaps yours is but not mine.

    I didn't have the intention to insult any person of faith, but I think we can both agree that most stances of a religious nature are immune to debate, I can't possibly use reason to argue that the resurrection of Jesus Christ happened as a matter of fact, I can't possibly use reason to argue that there is indeed heaven or hell, etc, and this is coming from a believer. Even in purely philosophical discussions people will have leaps of faith. These are however mostly absent from our political discussions here.
  9. 08 Nov '10 18:59
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [b]How can you verify left verses right? Which is the better political position?
    This is far too general and simplistic, I wasn't referring to "left vs right", what I had in mind was far more specific, say, discussions on rights and responsibilities, or taxation, or civil liberties, etc, these are all areas in which different sides of the debate can verify their claims to an adequate standard.

    [
    But the rights and responsibilities are up in the air. For example, the Congress has yet to pass a budget even though they were required to by law. Also, look at the ballooning deficits. Who gives a damn other than the "radical right wingers"? They also ignore laws regarding illegal immigration. So what?

    As far as taxes, there are so many views about this there is no time to discuss it.
  10. 08 Nov '10 19:04
    Originally posted by whodey
    But the rights and responsibilities are up in the air. For example, the Congress has yet to pass a budget even though they were required to by law. Also, look at the ballooning deficits. Who gives a damn other than the "radical right wingers"? They also ignore laws regarding illegal immigration. So what?

    As far as taxes, there are so many views about this there is no time to discuss it.
    These are all matters in which either side can have their views defended in a debate where reason reigns supreme, I think you can see the difference between a question on the budget and a question on salvation, right?
  11. 08 Nov '10 19:07 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Similar to G-mo's point...

    Discussing spirituality strikes me as singularly uninteresting. What's really to discuss? Either you believe an unprovable event/truth/phenomenon XYZ or you don't. I'm not going to call spirituality irrational, but I'd say it's not really subject to rational debate.

    If I tell you that I believe XYZ because my father told me and ...[text shortened]... ? Conversely, why would I expect you to adopt my view based on this unsupported assertion?
    If someone wants to start a thread based on the meaning of something written in the Bible - you can have a very legitimate discussion IF everyone in the thread has a general agreement about the nature of the Bible. But almost always, it turns into chaos when three posters believe the Bible is the literal Word of God, three posters believe the Bible is a fairytale, two posters believe only in the Old Testament, one believes only in the Qur'an, four posters believe the Bible is true but only in a symbolic kind of way, and two believe the Bible is a plot by the establishment to justify the exploitation of the working class. So pretty much every thread just ends up being the same arguments about the whether or not the Bible is legitimate.

    Each OP in the spirituality forum should request that the debate in that thread be limited to people sharing some set of assumptions regarding the Bible (or some other set of scripture) so that the discussion can then proceed among those people - without the inevitable atheist jumping in and mocking the whole thing.

    In the political forums, there seems to be much more of a general agreement about the nature of the political and economic systems. And everyone pretty much wants to achieve the same goals - disagreeing mainly on the best ways of achieving them or on who's to blame for the goals not being met. So even where there is vehement disagreements, there's a set of common beliefs and assumptions that everyone can appeal to when they make their arguments.
  12. 08 Nov '10 19:08 / 4 edits
    Originally posted by generalissimo
    [I didn't have the intention to insult any person of faith, but I think we can both agree that most stances of a religious nature are immune to debate, I can't possibly use reason to argue that the resurrection of Jesus Christ happened as a matter of fact, I can't possibly use reason to argue that there is indeed heaven or hell, etc, and this is coming fr ...[text shortened]... ill have leaps of faith. These are however mostly absent from our political discussions here.[/b]
    There is more to religion than the simply matters of proving that an immaterial God exists or that miracles occured. There is also the underlying themes and philisophical ideas to discuss. For example, the Bible teaches that God is love. It also discusses what love is. Christ taught that love was the driving force behind every law that God gave to mankind. Paul even gives a well written peice about love in 1 Corinthians 13 and more or less defines it.

    You could say that love is where the material meets the spiritual and vice versa. In and of itself, love does not exist, however, despite this fact it is the single most important driving force in our lives. Without it our lives have no meaning whatsoever.

    So where am I going with this? I would say you have one of two choices. You could say that man made up God to try and explain the phenomenon of love or you could say that love dominates our lives because he is really a God of love. In fact, don't most religions teach that God is a God of love? For me, God is the study of love.
  13. 08 Nov '10 19:14
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    In the political forums, there seems to be much more of a general agreement about the nature of the political and economic systems. And everyone pretty much wants to achieve the same goals - disagreeing mainly on the best ways of achieving them or on who's to blame for the goals not being met. So even where there is vehement disagreements, there's a set a se ...[text shortened]... of common beliefs and assumptions that everyone can appeal to when they make their arguments.[/b]
    Nope. In the political arena you get lovers of Big Brother, those who wish to reduce the size of government and those who don't want to be governed by any government. All proclaim that their world is the best world and, therefore, they wish to impose it upon everyone. There is usually little agreement about how to achieve the utopia that they are all seeking.
  14. 08 Nov '10 19:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    There is more to religion than the simply matters of proving that an immaterial God exists or that miracles occured. There is also the underlying themes and philisophical ideas to discuss. For example, the Bible teaches that God is love. It also discusses what love is. Christ taught that love was the driving force behind every law that God gave to mankind ...[text shortened]... fact, don't most religions teach that God is a God of love? For me, God is the study of love.
    This is a fair point, but notice that I said most stances of a religious nature are immune to debate, not all. As melanerpes said, these discussions are also dependent on a certain general agreement, the discussion for example on love or the forgiveness of sins, are all essentially dependent on the presumption that indeed there is a God as traditionally defined.

    There is very clear distinction between the discussions of the debates forum and those of spirituality, here we have reason and certain general agreements as the foundation of our arguments, whereas in spirituality reason is a secondary foundation as faith is ultimately the source of all metaphysical assumptions on which religious discussions are based.
  15. 08 Nov '10 19:20 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    There is more to religion than the simply matters of proving that an immaterial God exists or that miracles occured. There is also the underlying themes and philisophical ideas to discuss. For example, the Bible teaches that God is love. It also discusses what love is. Christ taught that love was the driving force behind every law that God gave to mankind ...[text shortened]... fact, don't most religions teach that God is a God of love? For me, God is the study of love.
    I'll use this as an example.

    This would be an interesting topic for evangelical Christians to discuss. They could then quote different Bible verses as they argue about what the Bible's message is regarding the nature of God's love - but everyone would have to be in agreement that the Bible is the Word of God.

    Likewise, a group of devout Muslims could have a lengthy thread about the Qur'an and its message about the nature of God's love - but everyone would have to be in agreement that the Qur'an is the Word of God.

    Now this would also be an interesting topic for people of varying different religions to discuss. But in this case, the ground rules would have to exclude any claims that one person's scripture was any truer than any other - and instead, the discussion would be about what sacred traditions in general has to say about the nature of God.

    But these discussions can't happen at the same time without it becoming chaos -- it would just end up with people getting into arguments about whose scripture is the true Word of God.