Why only debate one?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Why only debate one? » Why only debate one?

Why only debate one?

Page: 1 2 3

Why only debate one?

TheThoughtfulOne
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 04, 2009
Location: Evansville, IN

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 69

Posted 05/05/09 - 01:47 PM: Subject: Why only debate one?	#1
I've noticed that people here debate against God in the Christian sense. There are other religions out there you know. We should take those in consideration as well. Though the Judo/Christian based religions have many flaws and contradictions, we should look to other religions as well. Compare and debate them. I think much knowledge could be gained by doing this.
I am what I am, but what am I? - Me

5kroner
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 05/05/09 - 04:27 PM:	#2
When you move outside of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, the heavy focus on the relationship of man to God is lost, and in most cases no longer there. The other major religions don't seem to focus on a relation to a single creator, or a single God, so you're no longer arguing against God or a creator.

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 05/06/09 - 06:46 AM:	#3
TheThoughtfulOne wrote: I've noticed that people here debate against God in the Christian sense. There are other religions out there you know. We should take those in consideration as well. Though the Judo/Christian based religions have many flaws and contradictions, we should look to other religions as well. Compare and debate them. I think much knowledge could be gained by doing this. I commented several times that the debate was biased toward the commonly held beliefs about what God is, but didn't address the possiblity that other beliefs of what God is or how he exists could be true. But then again it is always easier to debate about how many angels dance on the head of a pin then to really think about a problem.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

TempletonEsquire
Irrationally Biased

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Location: Close To Nil

Total Topics: 9
Total Posts: 315

Posted 05/06/09 - 04:36 PM:	#4
The debate is often whether or not something exists outside of the materialistic viewpoint. It just so happens that the majority of people willing to debate religious idealism come with a written guidebook on what exists outside a materialistic viewpoint and are not aloud to stray from the guidebook. So the debate normally centers around the guidebook itself. Without having a pre-written guidebook, most people are not willing to waste their time in challenging your beliefs because you are not beholden to a dangerous group of influentials, and are instead just a lonely hierophant.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island

Total Topics: 28
Total Posts: 3304

Posted 05/06/09 - 07:16 PM:	#5
Because most posters, here, come from Christian backgrounds and cultures, they really can't see any other viewpoint or are unqualified to comment on other viewpoints. Even then, the "one" isn't really that consistent after all. No single doctrine is shared by all groups claiming themselves as "Christian" and in their own forums, they debate who is and isn't a member of their club. Trinitarian? Progressive or Fundamentalist? Surveys show that most Christians don't even believe their own dogmas, so all the debates get stuck between what people believe and what their church officially states.
Ethics is the measuring of morality. Morality is the measuring of good. Good is the measuring of benefit. Benefit is the measure of values.

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5133

Posted 05/06/09 - 10:17 PM:	#6
TheThoughtfulOne wrote: I've noticed that people here debate against God in the Christian sense. There are other religions out there you know. Search PF more extensively. There are many many discussions about god sans religious expression as well as about religious expression sans god. The latter are essentially theological and the former metaphysical topics. Personally, I do not find any intellectual merit in theological (i.e. doctrinal/scriptural) questions. dclements wrote: I commented several times that the debate was biased toward the commonly held beliefs about what God is, but didn't address the possiblity that other beliefs of what God is or how he exists could be true. Other possibilities such as ...? I've argued -- on 'metaphysical' grounds -- that the class of "transcendent gods", which includes but is not exhausted by the usual suspects (e.g. JCI god), is imaginary, or not real. Perhaps there are "non-transcendent gods" but they definitely are not what any religious believer, or mystic, claims to worship. But then again it is always easier to debate about how many angels dance on the head of a pin then to really think about a problem. Yeah, I agree. The real problem is, of course, determining whether or not there's a "pin". (We've certainly got plenty of pinheads though.) Edited by 180 Proof on 05/08/09 - 02:51 PM. Reason: spelling ...
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

mayor of simpleton
CAT vs. DOGMA

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 20, 2009
Location: Vienna, Austria

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 529

Posted 05/07/09 - 12:23 AM:	#7
This is just a "quip" if you will, but it has always seemed to me that on the surface Dualistic Religions (j-c-i) are ideal for arguments. Right/Wrong, Good/Bad, Choosen/Heathen, these seemly black and white distinctions are loaded and are ripe for debate. It's quite easy and similar to looking at a car accident. You don't want to look, but you just have too. Often humans take in the deepest breaths (sniffing) when things just plain stink. To back swstephe thought, this forum is in English and the majority of English speakers are coming from an environment where Dualistic Religions are the trend. (please correct me if I am wrong here) The effects of such a cultural influence and the affect it has upon both believer, non-believer and non-interested are real and cannot be denied. These influences will in a direct or indirect way be a part of the consciouness of those within this given liguistic spectrum. Sort of like the weather. You will take it with you. We tend to debate what we know. I would quite enjoy a sharing of thoughts upon the "existance of god(s)" from non-dualistic (non-literal)perspectives. A dose of paradox, realitivity and methophor would not be bad for a change. Any suggestion? Cheers! GREG
I am not one to attribute that which I cannot understand immediately to be god(s)-perhaps I will never understand, but god(s) are not defined by my lack of understanding-this is the foundation of dogmas, the pressing of connotative values into the realm of dennotative meaning. - MOS http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIYJERcdHb0 Jerry Sings!

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 05/07/09 - 03:19 AM:	#8
TempletonEsquire wrote: The debate is often whether or not something exists outside of the materialistic viewpoint. It just so happens that the majority of people willing to debate religious idealism come with a written guidebook on what exists outside a materialistic viewpoint and are not aloud to stray from the guidebook. So the debate normally centers around the guidebook itself. Without having a pre-written guidebook, most people are not willing to waste their time in challenging your beliefs because you are not beholden to a dangerous group of influentials, and are instead just a lonely hierophant. Actually this even more of a reason to debate a belief. If you can not understand something there is no way you can prove it wrong. Therefore if you encounter viewpoints or beliefs outside your own, especially beliefs that are completely different or even alien to the way you see things, you should do your best to understand them. Otherwise you are choosing to limit your understanding of the world.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 05/07/09 - 03:28 AM:	#9
swstephe wrote: Because most posters, here, come from Christian backgrounds and cultures, they really can't see any other viewpoint or are unqualified to comment on other viewpoints. Even then, the "one" isn't really that consistent after all. No single doctrine is shared by all groups claiming themselves as "Christian" and in their own forums, they debate who is and isn't a member of their club. Trinitarian? Progressive or Fundamentalist? Surveys show that most Christians don't even believe their own dogmas, so all the debates get stuck between what people believe and what their church officially states. But is something true because the majority of people believe it? Take the common belief of that Hinduism is a religion. However anyone that really knows anything about Hinduism knows that it isn't a single religion, but instead hundreds if not thousands of religions that are lump together. Should we still classify as a religion the same as Christianity or accept it as something else?
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

dclements
Hedonistic Nihilist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 26, 2004

Total Topics: 46
Total Posts: 1448

Posted 05/07/09 - 03:44 AM:	#10
180 Proof wrote: Other possibilities such as ...? I've argued -- on 'metaphysical' grounds -- that the class of "transcendent gods", which includes but is not exhausted by the usual suspects (e.g. JCI god), is imaginary, or not real. Perhaps there are "non-transcendent gods" but they definitely are not what any religious believer, or mystic, claims to worship. Ok, how about Taoism and their belief in 'the way'. Taoism is a really good religion for westerns if they want to know of how the line between believers and non-believers can get blurred. BubbaSwitzler once tried to argue that all religions believe in God, which is not really true when you consider Taoism which has both theist and atheist. In Taoism, god-like beings take a back sit to the idea that everything must try to align itself to 'the way' which is pretty much everything else in the universe. When something is 'unbalanced' there are more problems, so it is best to be in 'balance' so life is a bit smoother. Anyways the bottom line is that in such a belief system a world filled with moral agents that act together is the same with or without what most westerns conceive of as God and the difference between theism and atheism is moot.
No, you don't get it, thats why I'm telling you. You think you get it, which isn't the same as actually getting it. Get it?-Kakashi Hatake Virtue itself turns vice, being misapplied, And vice sometimes by action dignified-Friar Lawrence The state of mind that questions is much more important than the question itself.Any question may be asked by a slavish mind, and the answer it receives will still be be within the limitations of its own slavery...Freedom of desire for an answer is essential for the understanding of a problem-Krishnamurti

Page: 1 2 3

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.