Debate about Debates

[Darnoc]

So, if there must be tangible evidence for a debate to exist and/or continue, then why is there a constant argument about the existence of a higher being? (i.e God). Why do religions wish to argue that their God exists, and yet they have no evidence save for written accounts which are pretty open and can be taken for metaphorical meanings? To quote Douglas Adams "God says I refuse to proove that I exist, because proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."

So, if they have no proof (or evidence) then aren't the arguments and debates they set forth inherently flawed? That there is no true evidence, and because of that, a debate regarding the existence of a higher being, is in fact, pointless?

 

You have misunderstood me. A debate can only begin, if there is no evidence or if new evidence appeared.

 

In the case of any higher being, there is no evidence either proving its existence or disproving its existence. So we can debate this matter, until either the existence or non-existence of any higher being is proven.

 

But that is not the point of most debates. Rather few debates end that way, most debates end without clear evidence and the side with the better arguments winning or even a no-winning-scenario. The point of a debate is rather to compare different points of view and to share arguments. In a constructive debate, both sides will profit from arguments brought forth against them, since then one's own point of view can be reviewed and perhaps changed in light of the arguments.

 

And therefore also the debate concerning any higher being is not flawed from the beginning, but can be constructive, if both sides are willing to review their point of view in light of new arguments. The problem with this kind of debate is that the oppinion of both sides is based absolutely on faith and that mostly includes the unchangable nature of faith, so neither side is willing to review or give up their point of view. The debate is existing now for millenias and still has not found an end, the arguments are mostly the same and the arguments of both sides were mostly already disproven.

[Peregrine]

You have misunderstood me. A debate can only begin, if there is no evidence or if new evidence appeared.

 

Or if someone posts a "debate" because they are too ignorant/stubborn to know/accept that it isn't a valid debate, and that they are doomed to lose from the beginning. This seems to be a pretty good percentage of the debates I've seen.

In the case of any higher being, there is no evidence either proving its existence or disproving its existence. So we can debate this matter, until either the existence or non-existence of any higher being is proven.

 

And here's one of the reasons debates are so hard to do online, few people really understand the concept of proof. If you did, you'd know that it's impossible to prove a negative. It's not just religion, people online have a habit of not researching their facts at all with anything. And so what they think is a debate isn't.

 

The burden of proof is always on the side making the extraordinary claims. The existance of a higher power is just that. It is their job to prove it right, not the opposition to disprove every random claim they make. It might be possible to prove the existence of one, but saying "you can't prove there isn't a god" means nothing.

The debate is existing now for millenias and still has not found an end, the arguments are mostly the same and the arguments of both sides were mostly already disproven.

 

The "debate" has been going so long because one side has a habit of ignoring all evidence presented to them. Instead, they just cover their ears and pretend they can't hear you. Just like melu2, they'll ignore overwhelming evidence with a simple "I know I'm right, and I won't believe you".

[Dark0ne]

If this becomes a "god doesn't exist/god does exist because of 'this'" thread, I'm going to lock it pretty quick.

[Peregrine]

It isn't. Proof is a concept completely independent of religion/god/whatever. That's just the subject where people fail to understand it most often, but the same concept exists if you were trying to claim Iraq had nukes.

 

And the comment about ignoring evidence is not intended to apply to just the religious side of that debate (or even to everyone on that side). The same idiocy happens plenty of times with other subjects. Melu2 just happens to be the most recent of them, and the only one I could think of who actually stated it in those terms.

[ThetaOrionis01]

But that is not the point of most debates. Rather few debates end that way, most debates end without clear evidence and the side with the better arguments winning or even a no-winning-scenario. The point of a debate is rather to compare different points of view and to share arguments. In a constructive debate, both sides will profit from arguments brought forth against them, since then one's own point of view can be reviewed and perhaps changed in light of the arguments.

 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes!

 

For once, I completely agree with you, Darnoc. I find all this stuff about having to have a 'winner' and a 'loser' in a debate very childish, and IMO if you approach a debate with a need to win then you are probably not mature enough to participate in it.

 

A debate gives you an opportunity to clarify your own thoughts, and re-examine them in the light of others' counter arguments. It forces you to address those points, and re-evaluate your own arguments. Sometimes such a debate will lead you to change your mind, sometimes it will affirm your previously held opinion. At any rate, you still benefit from participating in the debate. Debates, above all, should create doubt, and therefore make you question your own arguments, and prevent your own opinions from becoming inflexible and entrenched.

[ShinJiOh]

Terrible example. A major war like WWI is a threat to Australia's security. More importantly, war on the scale of WWI was unheard of. It's perfectly reasonable that people would want to re-evaluate their defense plans with that new knowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not so, the constitution dictated that Australia had to be under a direct threat or attack to introduce conscription, but the war was all the way into Europe. But let us just see throguh this as I said it was off the top of my head and I don't want to be responsile for changing the arguement.

 

Debates, above all, should create doubt, and therefore make you question your own arguments, and prevent your own opinions from becoming inflexible and entrenched.

 

I couldn't agree more, sticking with your decision without even listening to another is ignorant. But what of other debates that end in violence, given, they are not debates but still they begun as debates. What is to be gained from this?

[Malchik]

Peregrine believes debates are fun because you can demolish the opposition and win. This is only true if the subject is provable and in that case there is no debate possible. The only debates I have seen on this forum are those to do with religion where Peregrine has often considered it winning when the opposition conceded that there was no PROOF. The existence or otherwise of God can go on being the subject of a debate for years. Faith, not proof, sustains believers. Faith in the absence of evidence, not proof, sustains non-believers like myself. You can demolish the opposition in some cases but you do not win the debate as a result. Each one of us on this forum will have a view, even if it's only 'don't know, don't care'. Each of us is entitled to say it. Anyone may disagree. The fact that you don't agree with Peregrine does not make you stupid (except perhaps in his eyes).

 

That you cannot prove something does not mean it is not true. All you have to accept is a possibility that you may one day have to change your mind. (However unlikely that may seem to you at the moment.)

[ShinJiOh]

delete this one sorry

[ShinJiOh]

Each one of us on this forum will have a view, even if it's only 'don't know, don't care'.  Each of us is entitled to say it.  Anyone may disagree. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Quite true. Perhaps this is the attitude we should all share, why should we bicker and argue about a subject to someone who is on the otherside of the world, who has different peers and therefore, obviously different beliefs? (and I don't mean religion). Okay, so enlightenment is the main issue. But how many people have posted that are from "third world" countries to add their thoughts?

 

If none, then why do we argue to each other without seeing the full picture, without knowing what everybody thinks, with just what we think should be the correct arguement?

 

If there is, then surely our opinions would contrast greatly and therefore end in a massive arguement anyway. Though obviously the more calm-minded person would cease and desist, we still started an arguement with someone across on the other side of the world (relatively speaking) who's opinion will no doubt differ.

 

Yes, it helps a debate when there are two opposing sides but when there need not be an arguement why should we argue?

So we should never disagree about anything? We should just let people be ignorant because we don't want to offend them?

Presicely, well, apart from the thing about people being ignorant, but if there is no offence, there is no defence, and hence no arguement.

[Zmid]

The way I see it, what I get out of a debate is a greater understanding of other people's points of view, and sometimes (especially if a debate goes off on a tangent somehow), knowledge - if a debate I am participating in begins to delve into areas I have little or no knowledge in, I sometimes have to do a bit of research to see if somebody is talking out of their arse or not. :grin: