Comments about "The Great Debates"

[Arnold_Winkelried]

@SDMBKL

Questioning someone’s beliefs depends on the situation. If you are a person interested in so-and-so faith by choice, and you invite so-and-so into your home by choice, then you are allowed to question their beliefs before you accept them.

Now, if you have a Muslim friend who is simply sharing his family traditions and beliefs with you on so-and-so holiday or so-and-so topic, then I do not think it would be polite to question your Muslim friend; rather, it would be considered inconsiderate to doubt an innocent sharing of religious beliefs.

Your OP was talking about the Great Debates forum.
Now you are changing tacks and talking about people that you meet socially at a holiday function. Those are two different situations.

ETA: If I meet someone socially at a holiday function, and the person starts trying to convert me, then I have the perfect right to engage in a debate about their beliefs.

[Thudlow_Boink]

@SDMBKL

I get the point. Being religious inherently means being ignorant. Although I have heard that religion has an association with poverty and oppression, I still think that religion, in some respects, is helpful for society. Religion has contributed to art, to science, to culture, to academia, to morality, et cetera, and deserves a place in society. I can see why being religious can be perceived as being ignorant, because believing in imaginary beings without proof is a sign of a mental illness, like schizophrenia. However, I do not think that believers really believe that such beings exist in objective reality. Perhaps, they secretly know that gods do not exist, and religions are all make-believe, but they insist on religion, because they want emotional and spiritual security. Therefore, perhaps, even though religious people may appear ignorant and want to persuade other people to appear ignorant, maybe the best way to deal with them is to comfort them that being irreligious can be just as satisfying as being religious.

There’s a lot that I’m tempted to say in response to this, but it would be a hijack of this thread and would more properly belong in the Great Debates forum itself. Maybe if I have time I’ll actually start a thread there later, but for now I’ll just say, No, I can tell you that religious people (well, some of them) really do believe in God.

[Irishman]

@SDMBKL

1. Witnessing is not debating. In a courtroom, witnessing means to tell the truth about what happened during a crime scene or one’s account about the defendant’s criminal status.

Irrelevant definition for this usage.

In a religious sense, witnessing means to tell the truth about what happened during one’s meeting with one’s god.

In a religious sense, witnessing is more than just describing a religious experience, it is describing a religious experience for the purpose of convincing others something about that religious experience. The value of the religion is supports, the importance of sharing the religious beliefs of the one who had the experience. The need to convert or repent or in some way change your actions to meet what the person telling the story feels is right.

That is why religious witnessing goes in GD. It is in essence a one-sided debate. “Hey you should believe this way”. If someone starts witnessing at me, I am thoroughly within my rights to (a) question their claims, (b) counter witness, (c) tell them to STFU as I don’t want to hear it. Of course, since this is an open board, I can’t tell them STFU because they may not be talking to just me, and someone else may be interested, but I can choose not to participate in the conversation. But the first two options are components of a rebuttal debate. Ergo, GD.

[VinylTurnip]

@SDMBKL

You don’t want to know. :rolleyes:

Kitty Litter?

[TriPolar]

@SDMBKL

I get the point. Being religious inherently means being ignorant. Although I have heard that religion has an association with poverty and oppression, I still think that religion, in some respects, is helpful for society. Religion has contributed to art, to science, to culture, to academia, to morality, et cetera, and deserves a place in society. I can see why being religious can be perceived as being ignorant, because believing in imaginary beings without proof is a sign of a mental illness, like schizophrenia. However, I do not think that believers really believe that such beings exist in objective reality. Perhaps, they secretly know that gods do not exist, and religions are all make-believe, but they insist on religion, because they want emotional and spiritual security. Therefore, perhaps, even though religious people may appear ignorant and want to persuade other people to appear ignorant, maybe the best way to deal with them is to comfort them that being irreligious can be just as satisfying as being religious.

Mere tolerance of theism is heresy to the religion of Atheism frequently found on this board.

[sisu]

@TriPolar

Mere tolerance of theism is heresy to the religion of Atheism frequently found on this board.

Religion is based on belief in supernatural beings, Atheism is the rejection of this.

To call atheism religion is ignorant.

[WotNot]

@Alan_Smithee

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but how old are you and where are you from? I ask because most people for whom English is their first language would have some knowledge of the meaning of both “witnessing” and “cross-examining the witness” without needing to look them up. “Cross-examining the witness” in particular is a very common phrase on television, given all the courtroom dramas and police procedurals. On the other hand, your English seems very good, so maybe you’re just very young.

“Cross-examining the witness” I’ll give you, but I think “witnessing” in this sense is very much a “religious American” thing. Certainly I, as a native English-speaker born in England, didn’t learn that sense of the word until I was in my 40s, I think.

Incidentally, am I the only one taking something of a liking to SDMBKL? (S)he seems the sort of poster we ought to encourage.

[sisu]

@SDMBKL

I do not think that such people would be so interested in trying to convert non-believers using the science as evidence to prove their god is real. Religious people would be more interested in humanitarian efforts and try to touch you on your emotional side. Maybe you have lost a loved one, and to heal your pain, you think you would like to join a faith so that faith can heal your pain. The religious people may tell you to pray to their god/your god that someday you would see your loved one in heaven or that your loved one is already in heaven. Such a method can be a nice, soothing placebo effect to relieve stress.

I have never encountered a religious person who would try to persuade me to follow his or her faith, unless I have an interest in it. (I usually just decline the offer; I’ve never got the belief-of-a-god system.)

yes that is how most religious folk I have met work but there are always the dangerous ones who push creationism as science in schools etc, these I will rally against!

[toadspittle]

@SDMBKL

You don’t want to know. :rolleyes:

Kuala Lumpur? (My first guess.)

[Bryan_Ekers]

@toadspittle

Kuala Lumpur? (My first guess.)

Mine too, though why it should be a matter of shame or secrecy eludes me.

[Voyager]

@SDMBKL

On the other hand, I wonder how the members would react to Joan of Arc’s spiritual testimony about God’s request. If the members are so antagonistic to spiritual testimonies, then would they react the same way to Joan of Arc’s spiritual testimony as well? I do recall that Joan of Arc is the girl who is led by God to fight for the French army.

There are two sides to every story. Check out Henry VI, Part 1.

[sisu]

Invoking gods name and saying that he wants you kill people is a pretty good way to rally the masses, doesn’t make it true of course.

[choie]

@Bryan_Ekers

Mine too, though why it should be a matter of shame or secrecy eludes me.

It bugs me whenever I see his name 'cause my initials are KL. So I keep thinking “dammit, SDMBKL is ME!” But then I read the posts and… erm, clearly not. That’s when I breathe a sigh of relief, realizing that I haven’t acquired DID among my myriad other mental quirks.