What are you trying to do when you debate against people denouncing your beliefs?

[SalixIncendium]

I'm not sure of the official position of Advaita Vedanta or Hinduism in general, but in my understanding, Brahman has no beginning and no end.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is there an official position for Advaita? Hinduism does not ever have official positions. Only sects have official positions. Sure, Brahman is eternal, unchanging, uninvolved and form-independent.

 

[Nimos]

I started wondering about this just now when I was writing a post. There might be many different answers. Sometimes it might be just for the challenge of it or for social interaction. Sometimes when I’m tempted to do it, it’s just to test some ideas to see how well they will float or fly, maybe like experimenting with paper airplanes. Maybe sometimes it’s to help strengthen the beliefs of other people who believe the same way? Maybe sometimes people think that it’s a way of telling people something they might need or want to know? Maybe sometimes people are trying to prove that they aren’t wrong? Prove it to whom?

I watched this debate the other day and I think this is a really good example of why it matters. In this particular case, especially if you are from the US. I think you would be able to get a lot of your answers here, and also how people not on these forums see it and why it is important.

So I would suggest to take your time and just listen to it and hear the arguments.

 

[Jim]

I watched this debate the other day and I think this is a really good example of why it matters. In this particular case, especially if you are from the US. I think you would be able to get a lot of your answers here, and also how people not on these forums see it and why it is important.

So I would suggest to take your time and just listen to it and hear the arguments.

Do you, personally, often debate against people denouncing your beliefs? If not, then my question was not for you. If you do, then my question is, what are you, personally, trying to do, when you debate against people denouncing your beliefs? Do you, personally, have some aim or purpose in mind? Is there something that you, personally, are hoping to accomplish? Is there some good that you, personally, think it might do for you or for some other people?

 

[Nimos]

Do you, personally, often debate against people denouncing your beliefs? If not, then my question was not for you. If you do, then my question is, what are you, personally, trying to do, when you debate against people denouncing your beliefs? Do you, personally, have some aim or purpose in mind? Is there something that you, personally, are hoping to accomplish? Is there some good that you, personally, think it might do for you or for some other people?

To me its several things.

Whenever a religious person make a claim that God created everything etc. That is to denounce my beliefs in a way, but me debating such person, is basically because I would like to be presented with evidence against my beliefs and to have them challenged to see whether or not im likely to be wrong. And I, like everyone else should, in my opinion, I will counter argue their claims, if their evidence do not hold up. In the end, isn't that how we make sure we are not living on a lie?

So I would say that it is probably my personal goal, in regards to when someone is denouncing my beliefs, obviously I might simply be interesting in knowing what they think.

But on a broader spectrum and what I was also trying to show with the video, is that I think its more than just a personal thing, but its also about us as a community of humans, trying to figure out what is most likely to be true and therefore have a responsibility towards each other. So when people are trying to throw dirt in the machinery, because they might have another agenda, that it is not acceptable. In that sense, that It ought to be seen as personal denunciation of trying to reach the truth for everyone. Which is why it is so important, that we are playing with the same set of rules, in regards to how we evaluate evidence.

I don't know if you saw the debate, but one of the issue that Aron Ra points out, is when creationists systematically tries to spread misinformation about evolution, because they believe that something else is more likely to be true, and can't present a case for it. But that they want this to be taught in schools as an alternative to evolution. Not only are they trying to deceive or lie to there own children, but also others people's childrens. Which is not acceptable, as Aron puts it.

So again, its not because anything other than evolution in this field shouldn't be allowed to be taught. But we need to play using the same rules, so its not a matter of whether or not evolution can't explain everything yet. Its a matter of intelligent design, not being able to explain anything. And therefore it shouldn't be taught as an alternative.