• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is it possible to successfully debate religious fundamentalists?

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
Actually, you did:

Your post #73. You said you could prove creationism is false.

Quantrill
my bad. im sorry about that. :sorry1: I miss spoke. I should have said that i can prove the superiority of my stance, that the evidence weighs in my favor and not yours.


i would also like to note that when i had orginaly started this convo i was ref evo vs creationsim and was not including the universe but i will/do include it now though my ability to talk about it is less then that of evolution
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
Explain how fundamentalist's are wrong. They are only dishonest if they are wrong.

Quantrill

If I may say, I don't know if fundamentalists are wrong. I try not to judge anyone, that includes "fundamentalists".

Moses and the Shepherd

Moses heard a shepherd on the road, praying,
"God,
where are you? I want to help you, to fix your shoes
and comb your hair. I want to wash your clothes
and pick the lice off. I want to bring you milk
to kiss your little hands and feet when it's time
for you to go to bed. I want to sweep your room
and keep it neat. God, my sheep and goats
are yours. All I can say, remembering you,
is ayyyy and ahhhhhhhhh."

Moses could stand it no longer.
"Who are you talking to?"

"The one who made us,
and made the earth and made the sky."

"Don't talk about shoes
and socks with God! And what's this with your little hands
and feet? Such blasphemous familiarity sounds like
you're chatting with your uncles.
Only something that grows
needs milk. Only someone with feet needs shoes. Not God!
Even if you meant God's human representatives,
as when God said, `I was sick, and you did not visit me,'
even then this tone would be foolish and irreverent.

Use appropriate terms. Fatima is a fine name
for a woman, but if you call a man Fatima,
it's an insult. Body-and-birth language
are right for us on this side of the river,
but not for addressing the origin,
not for God."

The shepherd repented and tore his clothes and sighed
and wandered out into the desert.
A sudden revelation
then came to Moses.

God's voice:

You have separated me
from one of my own. Did you come as a Prophet to unite,
or to sever?
I have given each being a separate and unique way
of seeing and knowing that knowledge.

What seems wrong to you is right for him.
What is poison to one is honey to someone else.

Purity and impurity, sloth and diligence in worship,
these mean nothing to me.
I am apart from all that.
Ways of worshipping are not to be ranked as better
or worse than one another.
Hindus do Hindu things.
The Dravidian Muslims in India do what they do.
It's all praise, and it's all right.

It's not me that's glorified in acts of worship.
It's the worshipers! I don't hear the words
they say. I look inside at the humility.

That broken-open lowliness is the reality,
not the language! Forget phraseology.
I want burning, 'burning'.
Be friends
with your burning. Burn up your thinking
and your forms of expression!
Moses,
those who pay attention to ways of behaving
and speaking are one sort.
Lovers who burn
are another.


Don't impose a property tax
on a burned-out village. Don't scold the Lover.
The "wrong" way he talks is better than a hundred
"right" ways of others.
Inside the Kaaba
it doesn't matter which direction you point
your prayer rug!
The ocean diver doesn't need snowshoes!
The love-religion has no code or doctrine.
Only God.
So the ruby has nothing engraved on it!
It doesn't need markings.

God began speaking
deeper mysteries to Moses. Vision and words,
which cannot be recorded here, poured into
and through him. He left himself and came back.
He went to eternity and came back here.
Many times this happened.
It's foolish of me
to try and say this. If I did say it,
it would uproot our human intelligences.
It would shatter all writing pens.

Moses ran after the shepherd.
He followed the bewildered footprints,
in one place moving straight like a castle
across a chessboard. In another, sideways,
like a bishop.
Now surging like a wave cresting,
now sliding down like a fish,
with always his feet
making geomancy symbols in the sand,
recording
his wandering state.
Moses finally caught up
with him.

"I was wrong. God has revealed to me
that there are no rules for worship.
Say whatever
and however your loving tells you to. Your sweet blasphemy
is the truest devotion. Through you a whole world
is freed.
Loosen your tongue and don't worry what comes out.
It's all the light of the spirit."

The shepherd replied,

"Moses, Moses,
I've gone beyond even that.
You applied the whip and my horse shied and jumped
out of itself. The divine nature and my human nature
came together.
Bless your scolding hand and your arm.
I can't say what's happened.
What I'm saying now
is not my real condition. It can't be said."

The shepherd grew quiet.
When you look in a mirror,
you see yourself, not the state of the mirror.
The flute player puts breath into a flute,
and who makes the music? Not the flute.
The flute player!
Whenever you speak praise
or thanksgiving to God, it's always like
this dear shepherd's simplicity.
When you eventually see
through the veils to how things really are,
you will keep saying again
and again,

"This is certainly not like
we thought it was!"

-Rumi
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
Debate itself has one central assumption, that it is to be a rational discussion, therefore that semi-rational people use semi-rational arguments to espound their position and to listen to and examine the arguments of all parties. It is not fundamentalism that inhibits debate but rather the inability or unwillingness to engage in rational discussion and examination of all parties (including oneself).
 

bigbadgirl

Active Member
In a word,NO. You can not argue facts against fiction. Facts have to be proven. Fiction can be anything someone wants to make up.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
In a word,NO. You can not argue facts against fiction. Facts have to be proven. Fiction can be anything someone wants to make up.
i got a rasicit white supremacist to admit he was wrong once
 

-Peacemaker-

.45 Cal
I'll be blunt and say that I think atheism is living in denial. I think a simple look at creation is proof enough that someone created it but atheists hide behind the fact that we're not advanced enough to provide a mathematical equation to "prove" this, as if being proven by our scientists is the ultimate standard by which truth can be judged. I respect the agnostic who acknowledges that God is real but is distant and uninvolved because I believe there are indeed many people who he has drawn away from.
 

Iti oj

Global warming is real and we need to act
Premium Member
I'll be blunt and say that I think atheism is living in denial. I think a simple look at creation is proof enough that someone created it but atheists hide behind the fact that we're not advanced enough to provide a mathematical equation to "prove" this, as if receiving the thumbs up from our scientists is the ultimate standard that truth can be judged. I respect the agnostic who acknowledges that God is real but is distant and uninvolved because I believe there are indeed many people who he has drawn away from.
why? needs a longer message
 

9Westy9

Sceptic, Libertarian, Egalitarian
Premium Member
I'm not sure how this is related to the thread, but I'll answer anyway.

I'll be blunt and say that I think atheism is living in denial.

and I think theism is living in denial :p

I think a simple look at creation is proof enough that someone created it but atheists hide behind the fact that we're not advanced enough to provide a mathematical equation to "prove" this, as if being proven by our scientists is the ultimate standard by which truth can be judged.

Just because something looks designed, doesn't mean it's designed. Also people might disagree that creation is too complex to have come about by chance. I think if a god did create the universe then he wasn't perfect in doing so, hence all the 'bad' things we see.

I respect the agnostic who acknowledges that God is real but is distant and uninvolved because I believe there are indeed many people who he has drawn away from.

I was an agnostic theist but felt like there was no need, or real reason, to remain so.
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
Yes, I was speaking about fundamentalism in general - the attitude and behaviors that grow out of a perspective of unquestioning assumption. I'm sure there are many people who honestly believe all sorts of crazy things in the world. They're in this unfortunate position, however, because the shell of ignorance imposed on them was rooted in the inherently dishonest view that someone's assumptions were not allowed to be questioned.

Fair enough
 

Quantrill

Active Member
my bad. im sorry about that. :sorry1: I miss spoke. I should have said that i can prove the superiority of my stance, that the evidence weighs in my favor and not yours.


i would also like to note that when i had orginaly started this convo i was ref evo vs creationsim and was not including the universe but i will/do include it now though my ability to talk about it is less then that of evolution

That is no problem. I would ask, does your evidence support your beliefs. Or are your beliefs based on your evidence?

Quantrill
 

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
I'll be blunt and say that I think atheism is living in denial. I think a simple look at creation is proof enough that someone created it but atheists hide behind the fact that we're not advanced enough to provide a mathematical equation to "prove" this, as if being proven by our scientists is the ultimate standard by which truth can be judged. I respect the agnostic who acknowledges that God is real but is distant and uninvolved because I believe there are indeed many people who he has drawn away from.

To me, truth is facts based in proof. So I'll ask you this question: what's wrong with wanting evidence to support a belief? Does it seem so outrageous to you that someone would want some type of evidence before they'll believe something? If so, then surely you don't take issue with anyone who believes in Ishvara, Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, Allah, Amaterasu, Zeus, Horus, Mithras, Apollo, Poseidon, Ra, etc.? And therein lies the issue. Religious belief, especially when it comes to things like a god, where there is no real evidence to support it, has to be taken on faith. Faith is accepting as true that which has no evidence to support it. Reason is accepting what can be experienced or proven based on known facts. So, I find the comment that "atheists are in denial" much more misleading than saying "theists are in denial". An atheist accepts what he can prove and experience. A theist accepts that which cannot necessarily be proven or experienced. And, even if a god does exist, and created all things, I take issue with the definition that said deity is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-loving. But that's for another time and place.
 

Heathen Hammer

Nope, you're still wrong
I cry B.S.

Lets not let science act like they know things they don't.

Lets not teach science until they have facts and not theories.
A scientific theory is created from facts.
You can't have a theory unless you first had the facts.

This is why we teach science to kids. Your arbitrary demand is met.
 

blackout

Violet.
Or will they always put their hands over their ears and go "la la la".


What does your ability to 'sucessfully debate' have to do with whether or not the other person is listening to you?

Surely there must be some appropriate legitimate debait response techniques
to use when a fellow 'debater' is not actually addressing your points.
Doesn't that actually earn you 'debait' points? :shrug:



Note: I don't generally participate in debate myself,
that expands the boundaries of myself.
And Me, MySelf, and I don't follow any structured debate rules.
We just debate /consider things freely amongst ourselves.
 

InformedIgnorance

Do you 'know' or believe?
I'll be blunt and say that I think atheism is living in denial. I think a simple look at creation is proof enough that someone created it but atheists hide behind the fact that we're not advanced enough to provide a mathematical equation to "prove" this, as if being proven by our scientists is the ultimate standard by which truth can be judged. I respect the agnostic who acknowledges that God is real but is distant and uninvolved because I believe there are indeed many people who he has drawn away from.
That something exists is not proof it was created by some entity, only that it was created through some process. Mathematical proofs are not required, scientific (real science please) proofs and even logical proofs provide strong evidence, we are not after proof - merely strong evidence to support the possibility many theists claim as a certainty.

But most importantly you have the definition of Agnostic wrong, what you have described is a Deist, on the other hand an Agnostic says that they do not know whether or not God exists; subtypes of this based on whether they believe despite not knowing and on whether or not it is even possible to ever know. It possible to be an agnostic theist about the Christian God for example, believing that God exists but acknowledging you do not know, that does not mean that you believe that god is distant or uninvolved.
 
Last edited:
Top