Why Religious Debates Are Kinda Pointless

[Kahalachan]

I don't mean to say that this entire forum is pointless. By all means, keep posting and having fun here. I just intend to point out probably the most blaring obstruction that gets in the way that no one really bothers to chip away at. Let me illustrate.


Suppose we were to make a bet. I would say "I bet you $100 that I will not like this movie." You would be a fool to take this bet. I could always lie to win the bet. I could unwillingly delude myself into not liking it to win this bet. And there is no possible way you'd know the state of my mind to win the bet. BTW, I picked Avatar cause it's one that popped in my head that isn't a comedy or horror film. A bet like this would be easier with a comedy or horror film as a laugh or gasp could imply when a bet is won.

But you see the point right? Until we both agree on some external factor that would be an adequate judgement on victory or defeat, the bet's pointless and always in my favor.

In a way, this is what the million dollar challenge does. It sets the external factors for our "bet".


And as far as talking origins of the universe and all that. OK, let's use another media example. Suppose I were to bet you that Punky Brewster first aired in 1985. That would have external evidence we could use, but we would still have to agree on the evidence. I could say "OMG let's use Wikipedia" and you may question my enthusiasm as a hint that I edited the article. We could pick and choose sources. Eventually, maybe we'd agree on some old copy of TV Guide or something.

BTW, I picked Punky Brewster cause I remember having a crush on Soliel Moon Frye when I was little to the point I still remember her name.


With regards to my first example, I have made this bet.

"Wait Kahalachan, didn't you just say this bet is foolish to make?"

For the most part, yes. But with someone you trust who would be intellectually honest enough and open minded with you, you can actually bet something like $20 that they'll like a movie or not.


And that's exactly how a good religious discussion works. With friends or mature posters, I've had some fascinating ones. A lot of time on the net, it's been pretty pointless.


When you can't possibly know the state of someone's mind and that's a factor at stake, you'd best find something else you both can use or at least be able to trust the other person enough to give honest and open answers.


Thoughts? Am I preaching to the choir? Did I nail the 800lb gorilla? Agree? Disagree?

 

[Wolfman]

Agree? Disagree?

Disagree.

Yeah, sometimes religious debates are pointless. The other person's already convinced of their truth, and are not going to accept any argument or evidence to the contrary. But then, that's not confined just to religion...it is the same with debating some racists, communists, terrorists...if they're already convinced of the truth of their claims, no amount of debate or evidence is going to sway them (for that matter, I've met more than a few atheists who are every bit as closed-minded and blind as any theist).

However, there are two categories of people out there for whom such discussion/debate can make a difference. First are those who are having significant doubts about their faith, but can't find solid information or arguments to make an actual decision. Second are those who believe what they believe simply because that's what they've always been told, and who, when presented with evidence to the contrary, are actually able to accept and consider that, and adjust their own beliefs as needed.

I myself was once in the second category.

Putting all of that aside, its also useful for atheists. Understanding what theists believe, and why they believe it (as well as what evidence to cite to demonstrate its error) is immensely valuable. Rather than just repeating, "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" over and over (which is just as pointless and mindless as any theistic argument), you can actually engage them with real discussion of their beliefs.

I don't think that information or knowledge are ever a bad thing. Sure, there are people who will ignore or dismiss it...but that's no reason to conclude its all worthless.

 

[Kopji]

And this keeps us off twitter or facebook...

 

[SezMe]

The value in a debate could well be the thought processes used, new sources in information that come up, etc. IOW, it's the trip, not the destination.

 

[marplots]

Sometimes the process is valuable to me. I get a chance to see what I think and try to justify it. So, it works both ways, at least with honest discourse.

 

[Kahalachan]

Disagree.

Yeah, sometimes religious debates are pointless. The other person's already convinced of their truth, and are not going to accept any argument or evidence to the contrary. But then, that's not confined just to religion...it is the same with debating some racists, communists, terrorists...if they're already convinced of the truth of their claims, no amount of debate or evidence is going to sway them (for that matter, I've met more than a few atheists who are every bit as closed-minded and blind as any theist).

However, there are two categories of people out there for whom such discussion/debate can make a difference. First are those who are having significant doubts about their faith, but can't find solid information or arguments to make an actual decision. Second are those who believe what they believe simply because that's what they've always been told, and who, when presented with evidence to the contrary, are actually able to accept and consider that, and adjust their own beliefs as needed.

I myself was once in the second category.

Putting all of that aside, its also useful for atheists. Understanding what theists believe, and why they believe it (as well as what evidence to cite to demonstrate its error) is immensely valuable. Rather than just repeating, "You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong" over and over (which is just as pointless and mindless as any theistic argument), you can actually engage them with real discussion of their beliefs.

I don't think that information or knowledge are ever a bad thing. Sure, there are people who will ignore or dismiss it...but that's no reason to conclude its all worthless.

I was saying "kinda" pointless.

That is, under specific conditions, a religious debate is just going to go in circles. And what is a powerful catalyst for this is just an inability to agree when the other side has a very valid point due to the lack of an agreed upon measure of truth.

But I agree with your points. These things do make a healthy debate and discussion invaluable.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I have no idea how a $100 bet is the slightest bit analogous to religious belief.

Besides, if you are debating with the intent of getting the other guy to admit he was wrong, you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Resume]

Religion, and its worth (lack of), damn well better be debated in the United States; its undue influence upon public policy needs to stop, and now.

 

[Dimitri]

I do not think a religious debate is pointless for various reasons.
First of all, debating religion will give you the ability to learn how other people think. Your views do not necessarily need to correspond, but a debate is used to share and confront ideas and information.
Debating religion is succesfull in such a way that the information being shared enables the listeners to have their ideas confronted. This confrontation might mentally trigger a switch in which one of the two parties thinks "Hey, he is right, I never looked at it that way". (At least this should be happening.. theory and practice tend to disagree from time to time).

The debate thus provides a stepping platform to one of the parties to adapt or change his/her ideas. Maybe adjusting them or even learning something new.

I do not agree with you to the extend all religious debate is pointless, I agree with you on the point that religious debate is pointless to the extend it is simply for the fun of angering people without the intend to learn, or when one of the 2 parties refuses to "open their mind" and listen to what others have to say about their viewpoint.

Respect is a keyword.

 

[Resume]

I do not think a religious debate is pointless for various reasons.
First of all, debating religion will give you the ability to learn how other people think. Your views do not necessarily need to correspond, but a debate is used to share and confront ideas and information.
Debating religion is succesfull in such a way that the information being shared enables the listeners to have their ideas confronted. This confrontation might mentally trigger a switch in which one of the two parties thinks "Hey, he is right, I never looked at it that way". (At least this should be happening.. theory and practice tend to disagree from time to time).

The debate thus provides a stepping platform to one of the parties to adapt or change his/her ideas. Maybe adjusting them or even learning something new.

I do not agree with you to the extend all religious debate is pointless, I agree with you on the point that religious debate is pointless to the extend it is simply for the fun of angering people without the intend to learn, or when one of the 2 parties refuses to "open their mind" and listen to what others have to say about their viewpoint.

Respect is a keyword.

There are some who would argue that religion is afforded too much respect as it is.

 

[Dimitri]

That's why I also stress out both parties.

 

[Sledge]

[pedant]
Being scared by a horror movie doesn't mean I like it.
[/pedant]

 

[INRM]

I don't think debates are pointless. I think calling for a person's head on a chopping block because they insulted your religion, or calling anybody with any religious belief as being stupid, delusional, mentally ill, weak-minded, insane, psychotic, believing in fairy tales and so on is not productive.

 

[Radrook]

During all my years of participation on this forum only a few religious debate didn't turn into a shouting match. Among these was the one I had concerning the Tower of Babel with another poster called Callahan. Most others were marred by name-calling, ridicule, and barrages of vituperative diatribes. That's one reason why I generally approach debates with a certain wariness

 

[phantomb]

When you can't possibly know the state of someone's mind and that's a factor at stake, you'd best find something else you both can use or at least be able to trust the other person enough to give honest and open answers.

Thoughts? Am I preaching to the choir? Did I nail the 800lb gorilla? Agree? Disagree?

Disagree. At least a significant portion of religious debates involve claims or questions that can be rigidly defined and evaluated.

 

[Complexity]

I do not think a religious debate is pointless for various reasons.
First of all, debating religion will give you the ability to learn how other people think. Your views do not necessarily need to correspond, but a debate is used to share and confront ideas and information.
Debating religion is succesfull in such a way that the information being shared enables the listeners to have their ideas confronted. This confrontation might mentally trigger a switch in which one of the two parties thinks "Hey, he is right, I never looked at it that way". (At least this should be happening.. theory and practice tend to disagree from time to time).

The debate thus provides a stepping platform to one of the parties to adapt or change his/her ideas. Maybe adjusting them or even learning something new.

I do not agree with you to the extend all religious debate is pointless, I agree with you on the point that religious debate is pointless to the extend it is simply for the fun of angering people without the intend to learn, or when one of the 2 parties refuses to "open their mind" and listen to what others have to say about their viewpoint.

Respect is a keyword.

I disagree.

I neither want nor need to learn why woo think the way they do.

I haven't found that any religious debate changes a single mind - it merely reinforces the participants beliefs.

Respect for religion belief is unwarranted.

 

[Complexity]

That's why I also stress out both parties.

I also often stress out pretty near everyone else.

 

[Complexity]

I don't think debates are pointless. I think calling for a person's head on a chopping block because they insulted your religion, or calling anybody with any religious belief as being stupid, delusional, mentally ill, weak-minded, insane, psychotic, believing in fairy tales and so on is not productive.

Once again, I am reassured by disagreeing with you (regarding the post-or blather).

 

[Roadtoad]

Religion, and its worth (lack of), damn well better be debated in the United States; its undue influence upon public policy needs to stop, and now.

I do not think a religious debate is pointless for various reasons.
First of all, debating religion will give you the ability to learn how other people think. Your views do not necessarily need to correspond, but a debate is used to share and confront ideas and information.
Debating religion is succesfull in such a way that the information being shared enables the listeners to have their ideas confronted. This confrontation might mentally trigger a switch in which one of the two parties thinks "Hey, he is right, I never looked at it that way". (At least this should be happening.. theory and practice tend to disagree from time to time).

The debate thus provides a stepping platform to one of the parties to adapt or change his/her ideas. Maybe adjusting them or even learning something new.

I do not agree with you to the extend all religious debate is pointless, I agree with you on the point that religious debate is pointless to the extend it is simply for the fun of angering people without the intend to learn, or when one of the 2 parties refuses to "open their mind" and listen to what others have to say about their viewpoint.

Respect is a keyword.

I don't think this is emphasized nearly enough.

Consider the current fracas regarding the phrase "...under God..." in the pledge of allegiance. While I do see part of the point in this, there's a great deal that I find troubling in the whole debate.

First of all, the Pledge -- in and of itself -- is a voluntary act. No one is required to recite it. (This should be of some comfort to the likes of Natalie Maines and Michael Moore.) In fact, it serves no purpose for anyone to be forced into such a recitation, because at that point, it has no meaning. It's sort of like the swordpoint conversions of the Aztecs and other indigenous nations. So I'm left wondering why the fight over the words in question? It's ultimately pointless.

Just for consideration, folks: Consider the words to be our affirmation that you have the right to believe as you choose in this nation. I choose not to, but if that's your thing, then I'm willing to support your choice to believe there's a god. I may think you're making a mistake, but worse things have happened. (My only caveat is that if your belief in your god makes you do evil or stupid things, as in groping children or committing mass suicide, at that point, we're going to have a little talk.)

Yes, we need to discuss the role that religion plays in public policy. But I'm more than a little freaked over the notion of forcing anyone into this. I'd rather lead by example, then demonstrate why choosing another route is a better choice.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why Religious Debates Are Kinda Pointless
I'd have nominated you for the Pith Award, except you added the word "Why" to your title and lost your Pith moment. It happens to us all.