• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

The Debate Hall Social Thread

Nicholas1024

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
1,075
Succumbio, pardon my bluntness, but didn't Obama say he'd bring the troops home in his election campaign?

And regarding vaccinations, I personally would like to see some statistics before I evaluate the argument, saying "Oh, vaccines work because 10 unvaccinated people caught the disease" is like saying "Oh, oatmeal causes cancer because I found 10 cancer patients who regularly ate oatmeal."
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
libertarians are, in a general sense, socially liberal and economically conservative.
Interesting, I honestly didn't know that. As they say, you learn something new every day...

Sucumbio, now that we're on the subject... would a thread about which candidate we debate will be elected president be a good debate hall thread? I say debate because this doesn't need to be an "I would vote for x because y" but rather the "evidence/polls/positions of candidate x makes them more likely to be elected for reasons y, z, etc."

Any thoughts guys? Is anyone else interested in politics in this hall besides myself? I feel a very obvious yes coming...

-blazed
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,430
Location
Icerim Mountains
heck yeah, I'd love to get one started, especially to see how it trends over time between now and the election. go for it

Succumbio, pardon my bluntness, but didn't Obama say he'd bring the troops home in his election campaign?
yep, and he did successfully start the ball rolling on it, though we'll see if it's totally done by the time the election happens. but this "success" will no doubt be overshadowed in public opinion polls by the other "failures"
 

blazedaces

Smash Lord
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
1,150
Location
philly, PA, aim: blazedaces, msg me and we'll play
Succumbio, pardon my bluntness, but didn't Obama say he'd bring the troops home in his election campaign?

And regarding vaccinations, I personally would like to see some statistics before I evaluate the argument, saying "Oh, vaccines work because 10 unvaccinated people caught the disease" is like saying "Oh, oatmeal causes cancer because I found 10 cancer patients who regularly ate oatmeal."
Here's one of the comments posted on that article in response to someone doubting vaccine safety (not that you are):

jbush said:
"I want the studies and analysis..."

Then go look them up. There is a ton of information out there.

First off, there are clinical trials for vaccines, as required by law. The results are freely available:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=MMR

There is a huge amount of research on vaccine safety:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=vaccine+safety&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5

And there are plenty of long-term, permanent vaccine safety monitoring programs, like the Vaccine Safety Datalink Project
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Activities/VSD.html

and the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting system:
http://vaers.hhs.gov/index

Evidence overwhelmingly shows they are safe. Are these studies perfect? No, of course not. However, at this point, the level of risk from a vaccine is far lower than the risk of infectious disease:

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/6mishome.htm#risk
Now, there's plenty of other studies and information available out there on the subject. Most of it is done by sources which do not accept funding from the companies providing the vaccinations (as to avoid the bias involved with any monetary incentive).

-blazed
 

Ocean

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
3,810
Slippi.gg
OCEAN#0
As in free marketers who like placing restrictions on social freedoms, like abortion and drug-use. I'm thinking Republicans. And libertarians are socially liberal and economically liberal. I'm pretty sure.
the meaning of liberal has changed a lot over the years. it's basically synonymous with the left now, which isn't what I would call 'free-marketers'. I see where you're coming from now, but it's a bit out-dated term wise I'd say. terminology for political views has flipped over the years. I would consider libertarians economically conservative in the sense that they are pro-capitalist, and aim to reduce the size of the state (libertarianism with the ultimate goal of abolishing it).

EDIT:: I got a jolly giggle out of nicholas' post and the respective responses.
EDIT:: unrelated to the above, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
the meaning of liberal has changed a lot over the years. it's basically synonymous with the left now, which isn't what I would call 'free-marketers'. I see where you're coming from now, but it's a bit out-dated term wise I'd say. terminology for political views has flipped over the years. I would consider libertarians economically conservative in the sense that they are pro-capitalist, and aim to reduce the size of the state (libertarianism with the ultimate goal of abolishing it).

EDIT:: I got a jolly giggle out of nicholas' post and the respective responses.
EDIT:: unrelated to the above, but http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwjAX_r2kIU
I'm pretty sure that liberal actually means pro-freedom. At least when used in terms like, "socially liberal", "economically liberal" etc.

And here's what wikipedia would like to say on the matter of economic liberalism:

It is an economic philosophy that supports and promotes laissez-faire economics and private property in the means of production. Although economic liberalism can be supportive of government regulation to a certain degree, it tends to oppose government intervention in the free market when it inhibits free trade and open competition.
Economic liberals support economic freedom, and hence the free-market. And to be honest, it's not actually outdated, as it actually makes sense. The "conservatives" actually economically liberal and socially conservative, and it is from their social policies that we give them the name conservatives. In fact, this would probably best describe the Conservative Party in Britain. And the actual term for this is liberal conservatism.
 

Ocean

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
3,810
Slippi.gg
OCEAN#0
where do you live? because if you called economically liberal here, people would start calling you socialist.

economic liberalism falls under classic liberalism, on which wikipedia also says that "some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended."

also, "liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism."

on the same page about liberal conservatism, it's said that "Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative."

I'm fairly sure that we are each correct in the context of our respective regions.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
where do you live? because if you called economically liberal here, people would start calling you socialist.

economic liberalism falls under classic liberalism, on which wikipedia also says that "some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended."

also, "liberalism in the United States shifted, "between 1877 and 1937...from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism."

on the same page about liberal conservatism, it's said that "Over time, the general conservative ideology in many countries adopted economic liberal arguments, and the term liberal conservatism was replaced with conservatism. This is also the case in countries where liberal economic ideas have been the tradition, such as the United States, and are thus considered conservative."

I'm fairly sure that we are each correct in the context of our respective regions.
I live in Australia. So yeah, that probably explains it. Stupid vague political terms. I guess I probably should re-ask the question in more specific and clear terms.

I would like to ask a question of those who believe in economic freedoms, but wish to limit individual freedoms. eg. Republicans. If one's individual freedoms are limited, how is it possible for that person to be properly economically free? It seems as if there is an inherent contradiction.

I don't believe it applies the other way around, with regard to those who are economically interventionist but socially liberal, because economic regulations such as taxes and mandatory safety requirements do not appear to infringe on individual freedoms, such as whether one can use marijuana legally.
 

Ocean

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
3,810
Slippi.gg
OCEAN#0
now that the whole term thing has been sorted out (which was silly), I'll say that I agree.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Isn't that what "true" libertarians are? Or am I misunderstanding the term "socially conservative"?

Either way a die-hard libertarian would advocate against mandatory vaccinations.

Did anyone else watch the republican debate on monday where mandatory vaccinations were discussed and michelle bachman advocated the libertarian talking point that they are unconstitutional bla bla?

Does anyone else hear the republican debate and feel like they're listening to a combination of a mob following and just a group of absolute morons sometimes?

Even though I very much disagree with ron paul he's the only one on stage that actually tries to make arguments to defend any of his positions. And for that at least I respect him. The rest of them just yell talking points and it gets old very quick, especially when you look up what they say and most of it is just not true.

-blazed
Every time I watch a a republican debate, the next few days later is like I'm in a remake of the hang over.
 

KrazyGlue

Smash Champion
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
2,302
Location
Northern Virginia
I think the republicans may have had a legitimate chance at recapturing the presidency if they didn't come up with such awful candidates. They may still have a chance, but it's considerably less likely, and honestly I think Rick Perry would be the only candidate who would have a shot a beating Obama.
 

Sucumbio

Smash Giant
Moderator
Writing Team
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
8,430
Location
Icerim Mountains
I think the republicans may have had a legitimate chance at recapturing the presidency if they didn't come up with such awful candidates. They may still have a chance, but it's considerably less likely, and honestly I think Rick Perry would be the only candidate who would have a shot a beating Obama.
I thought this about Mittens until the polls started showing growing support for Perry and falling support for Romney. The trouble with 2nd-term elections is that the incumbent has to prove why they should remain a 2nd term, while the other has to figure out which one of their candidates could likely beat the incumbent. I see problems on both ends... I see Obama's overall approval rating in the low 40's with specific polls regarding his handling on jobs and on the economy as being in the 30's... and I see the republicans as having total ******s to pick from, with insane people like bachman and losers like perry. I tend to agree with you, KG... I don't think the republicans can wrest the white house from Obama (at least not with the candidates they have). But I also fear a surprise victory because Obama's just not as popular as he was when he first got elected, and I can't fault the people for this assessment. Even his own party members believe Obamacare didn't do enough, and his Jobs bill is actually pretty lame. He's also screwed up by (so far anyway) not getting behind passing the Dream Act which he basically promised the hispanic voters he'd do during his election. He'll lose them if he doesn't get it passed, despite his fighting against Arizona's et al immigration acts. Couple this with potentially losing the glbt vote due to taking so long to get don't ask don't tell shut down, and still not moving on gay marriage... eh. He worked so hard to get the minorities in his camp and I think he's shutting them out.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
I thought this about Mittens until the polls started showing growing support for Perry and falling support for Romney. The trouble with 2nd-term elections is that the incumbent has to prove why they should remain a 2nd term, while the other has to figure out which one of their candidates could likely beat the incumbent. I see problems on both ends... I see Obama's overall approval rating in the low 40's with specific polls regarding his handling on jobs and on the economy as being in the 30's... and I see the republicans as having total ******s to pick from, with insane people like bachman and losers like perry. I tend to agree with you, KG... I don't think the republicans can wrest the white house from Obama (at least not with the candidates they have). But I also fear a surprise victory because Obama's just not as popular as he was when he first got elected, and I can't fault the people for this assessment. Even his own party members believe Obamacare didn't do enough, and his Jobs bill is actually pretty lame. He's also screwed up by (so far anyway) not getting behind passing the Dream Act which he basically promised the hispanic voters he'd do during his election. He'll lose them if he doesn't get it passed, despite his fighting against Arizona's et al immigration acts. Couple this with potentially losing the glbt vote due to taking so long to get don't ask don't tell shut down, and still not moving on gay marriage... eh. He worked so hard to get the minorities in his camp and I think he's shutting them out.
Here is the stupid thing. His hands are actually tied. With a hostile House of Representatives, it's not really fair to lay the blame solely on him for not passing his reforms.
 

Evil Eye

Selling the Lie
BRoomer
Joined
Jul 21, 2001
Messages
14,433
Location
Madison Avenue
I'm not a fan of attack ads, honestly.

I mean, I understand them as a necessary evil in the election business, but attack ads that rely on inciting baseless fear in a voter are greasy, greasy politics. If you have to go with the attack ad thing, stick to statistics and facts. And relevant ones, not "Obama wrote a song about becoming the President when he was in kindergarten".
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
I'm not a fan of attack ads, honestly.

I mean, I understand them as a necessary evil in the election business, but attack ads that rely on inciting baseless fear in a voter are greasy, greasy politics. If you have to go with the attack ad thing, stick to statistics and facts. And relevant ones, not "Obama wrote a song about becoming the President when he was in kindergarten".
2004 against Kerry. The repugnican party has it coming.
 

Ocean

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
3,810
Slippi.gg
OCEAN#0
the point of a political campaign is not to say why the other opponent is wrong, it is to say why you are right.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
the point of a political campaign is not to say why the other opponent is wrong, it is to say why you are right.
Yes, but that doesn't stop "the other guy is a baby-eater!" from working in American politics. Plus, at this point, we aren't talking about things like the Swift Boat Vets where everything they did flew in the face of the facts; we're talking about just pointing out the idiocy that these candidates have committed to in recent, well-documented history.
 

Ocean

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
3,810
Slippi.gg
OCEAN#0
if it's idiocy, then why did you just advocate an attack ad?
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Evil Eye's right. Attack ads are greasy politics. But if they work, candidates can justify them by saying "Look, America will do better if I'm elected, and this will help get me elected."

So necessary evil it is.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
I like how whenever there is a debate about god, we always get wrapped in questioning his existence, but I don't think anyone's ever asked the question "Does it matter?" Think about it, does it really matter if he exists or not? over 2000 years of debate neither side seems to have won, it's obvious if there is a god he/she is neutral toward human actions. So even considering the question seems pointless, all it serves as a distraction to divide people more and more.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
It does matter in the fact that as long as people are convinced that a deity exists, some portion of that group will be convinced they can/are divining the "will" of said deity. They will then go on to affect the lives of others based on whatever they imagine this deity is dictating. It could be for the positive or negative, though I would argue it's mostly for the negative.

Might as well try to nip the whole argument in the bud if you can, and leave even less ground and legitimacy for such propositions. Though, not to say that isn't a useful tact to take either, but not everyone is convinced that it's obvious that, if a deity indeed exists, it couldn't give a **** about humans.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
It does matter in the fact that as long as people are convinced that a deity exists, some portion of that group will be convinced they can/are divining the "will" of said deity. They will then go on to affect the lives of others based on whatever they imagine this deity is dictating. It could be for the positive or negative, though I would argue it's mostly for the negative.
Why does it matter if they belief deities exist? not every theist is going out on moral crusades trying to strip down the rights of who ever doesn't agree with them. Many people simple don't care to go out on those crusades but are still believers, I'm arguing if it's not hurting anyone why even bother? Most accept science while still believing in a higher power. You're arguing against me based on the notion that the minority is crazy and should be ridiculed, I just think it's more trouble than it's worth, you don't need to invalidate god to show how ridiculous it is.



Might as well try to nip the whole argument in the bud if you can, and leave even less ground and legitimacy for such propositions. Though, not to say that isn't a useful tact to take either, but not everyone is convinced that it's obvious that, if a deity indeed exists, it couldn't give a **** about humans.
That's exactly the point though, what's the gain of worship? Clearly you don't believe in god however for those that do what's the gain?
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Why does it matter if they belief deities exist? not every theist is going out on moral crusades trying to strip down the rights of who ever doesn't agree with them. Many people simple don't care to go out on those crusades but are still believers, I'm arguing if it's not hurting anyone why even bother? Most accept science while still believing in a higher power. You're arguing against me based on the notion that the minority is crazy and should be ridiculed, I just think it's more trouble than it's worth, you don't need to invalidate god to show how ridiculous it is.

That's exactly the point though, what's the gain of worship? Clearly you don't believe in god however for those that do what's the gain?
You are misinterpreting me if you think I’m suggesting that every theist is trying to actively trying to deprive other people of their rights or is waging holy war. I also believe that you do not have to be actively doing those things to cause harm either.

To understand my argument, you have to understand what is a fundamental aspect of human psychology. Humans form beliefs about the world to inform their actions and behavior, and provide basis for the conclusions they will reach or extrapolate to, and further influence other actions and behavior. No belief exists in a vacuum; it affects our thoughts and actions, however subtle or overt, frequently or rarely. Additionally, every belief can feedback into the belief-formulation system and affect what further beliefs come forth.

With that being the case, there is many ways for the consequences of a particular belief to manifest itself. It can manifest itself in the most extreme ways, as you mentioned, with outright violence or war on to anyone who does not agree with them or shares their belief set. These are definitely the most visceral and obvious of the harm that beliefs can bring forth, but you are right in saying that a majority of theists are not violent or murderous people. However, I’m not convinced that a negligible minority of them are either.

Especially these days, with all the power and technology that an individual can harness, there is a multitude of ways in which even a handful of people can cause untold damage and destruction. Whether from dirty nuclear bombs, to biological weapons, or to even financial or electronic attacks. What would happen if a small group of people managed to take down the electrical grid, or purposefully trigger a stock market crash? It’s completely, and unfortunately, feasible in this day and age. In a world where we are more interconnected and affected by other people than ever, would it not pay to be even more vigilant against those beliefs and ideas that can, and reliably have, make even a minority of people wish damage and pain upon others?

Nonetheless, as I said, these are the most extreme and rare examples. There is a great degree of gradation of affects that can be caused by such beliefs that are more subtle and indirect. The spreading of the false idea that condoms don’t help prevent STD or pregnancies has wreaked much havoc upon the African continent, and probably has caused not a negligible amount of harm elsewhere. The idea that the endtimes are upon us, or that a deity watches over and guides a particular nation can lead to caustic and corrosive politics, like I believe it has to an extent in the US, that causes less direct and obvious harm.

For example, how much pain and detriment would the US had been spared if religious institutions weren’t free from being taxed? This figure is undoubtedly nigh impossible to compute, at least for myself, maybe someone out there has the data to figure it out, but nonetheless I can’t imagine, especially in the US’s current economic predicament, that it’s an effect that is coming to any good.

Not to say that no good has ever come out of religious beliefs, or that theists have haven’t done anything else other than harm people and society, directly or indirectly. But the matter of fact is that these religious beliefs have a multitude of effects, exacerbated all the more by the sheer number of people and societies that have them, so for me it is exceedingly hard to see how beliefs are not hurting OR helping people at any particular moment, no matter how far up the causal chain it is. The thing is, whether they intend it to or not, it seems to me that it overall tends to do more harm than good, including the people that aren’t actively trying to fly planes into buildings, the ones who are ostensibly doing no harm.

I’m not trying to be selective here either, at least I hope I’m not and earnestly am trying to work to keep it that way. Every belief is affecting people in both direct and indirect ways, atheistic, theistic, or whatever. It’s just that theistic beliefs seem to be ones that are particularly unbound to the real world, they are unconstrained by things like logic and facts and data, which makes them, I think, inherently capricious and dangerous belief sets, because pretty much anything can follow from them depending on how the people holding them are feeling. Once again, in a world were everything and everyone is so intertwined, it seems to be more a liability than an asset. Especially since it’s been shown that, neurologically, conversing with a deity and repeating the deity’s beliefs is no different than conversing with your self and your own beliefs, it makes me all the more wary of it and I think all the more deserving of being checked and critiqued.

http://www.bradyns-blog.com/2011/06/inyourhead.html

In the end, I do think there is a tangible difference to be made debating the question, and talking it over with people, despite how pointless it may seem on the surface to talk to people who don’t seem to be directly partaking in all that I find wrong with religion, even if at the moment the exact question of a deity’s existence cannot be 100% disproven (which I doubt it ever will). There is a plethora of beliefs and issues that stem from it that really cannot be properly dealt with without addressing that question.
 

Theftz22

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Hopewell, NJ
The truth of the god debate is far from irrelevant. The outcome of your conclusions will have tremendous effect upon your everyday life. If god does exist, then your life should be radically different than it is now, as it is merely the transitory trial before an eternal afterlife. As such, you should worship god and promote his purposes so that you are guaranteed a spot in heaven for eternity. Or, if god does not exist, then life is fleeting and brief. Each second that ticks away is another moment forever lost, and one step closer to an eternal nothingness of death. If god does not exist, we live in a world populated mainly by people with false beliefs that you will interact with every day. You have to be prepared to give good reasons to these people why their beliefs are false and they are wasting time and money in matters of religion.

Of course here I mean a theistic, rather than deistic god, the possibility of which you rule out far too quickly.
 

Ocean

Smash Master
Joined
Nov 19, 2007
Messages
3,810
Slippi.gg
OCEAN#0
The truth of the god debate is far from irrelevant. The outcome of your conclusions will have tremendous effect upon your everyday life. If god does exist, then your life should be radically different than it is now, as it is merely the transitory trial before an eternal afterlife. As such, you should worship god and promote his purposes so that you are guaranteed a spot in heaven for eternity. Or, if god does not exist, then life is fleeting and brief. Each second that ticks away is another moment forever lost, and one step closer to an eternal nothingness of death. If god does not exist, we live in a world populated mainly by people with false beliefs that you will interact with every day. You have to be prepared to give good reasons to these people why their beliefs are false and they are wasting time and money in matters of religion.
this is probably my favorite post I've seen on these boards.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Underdogs, that's actually why I tend to agree with Penn Jillette when he says that not only does he not believe that god exists, but he doesn't even believe that others do either.

For example, I do not believe in Homeopathy. It's a total hoax, fraud, and nonsense. I would gladly and happily eat an entire bottle's worth of Homeopathic sleeping pills (what is claimed on the bottles to be a lethal dose) to prove anyone otherwise. Just as James Randi has been doing for years.

There is not one ounce of me that thinks "you know what? Maybe the fact that someone put caffeine into water, and then diluted it down into one part in 10^50 might actually make this substance a sedative!" No. Not for once second. I am so certain of this, that I would do something that would be lethal to me if I were wrong.

That is what it means to be certain of something.

And yet how many religious people claim to have the same degree of certitude in their deities? And yet fear death. If you actually really did believe this stuff, then there's no reason to have a funeral. When a friend or family member dies, you should have a ****ing party! You should be thinking "Wow, I wish I could die sooner, so I can go to heaven."

Chances are, you don't really, actually believe it.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
this is probably my favorite post I've seen on these boards.
's well put, but the sentiment is fairly common. Just saying. It was a good post.

Alt- belief is more complicated than that. I heard a Gillian Welch song once entitled "Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." The fear of death is instinctual and powerful, and while there are some who embrace christianity to the point of looking forward to it (actually quite a large number of elderly people, I should think) many just sort of go with the cultural flow, think about it once or twice and then justify it by thinking of their relatives and their terrestrial suffering, and then continue to believe and fear, accepting it as one of the many comfortable contradictions they live with.
 

Aesir

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 10, 2006
Messages
4,253
Location
Cts inconsistant antagonist
Reaver you really didn't need that wall of text it was quite unnecessary, also all those things you mentioned that religion can cause are not a by product of religion. I'm the last person you'll see saying religion can do no evil, the catholic churches stance on birth control is at best negligible, and at worst borderline criminal.

However I have to clarify, talking about existence is fine in my book but at the end of the day getting into lengthy debates about it is meaningless because it serves as a distraction to real problems. Yes you're right religious leaders with all their power can sway people to do an action against their own self interest, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the atrocities and indirect harm caused by religion doesn't have very much to do with religion at all. I would argue it's an eduction problem. Not enough people are educated and those people tend to rely on religion where those religious leaders abuse their power.

I've said this before, if you remove religion and god you would still awful things being done by people. Religion is to narrow of a subject, if you look at the bigger picture any institution which causes you to not think is inheritable bad.

Even if it was possible to invalidate the existence of god empirically what's to say people would stop believing in silly notions of virgin births and imaginary friends looking out for you.

EDIT: underdog: I'm arguing about this from a cynical stand point, which again why should it matter anymore? Science has all but refuted every thing religion has held dear except for god. I would argue again that thousands of years of debate have shown one thing and that's either side cannot make definite claim one way or another. Disbelief might be logical but people don't look for logic they look for proof. Fact of the matter is as long as god is a grey area you're going to have constant disagreements, so instead of even attacking the problem of god, I would rather focus it on other area's and real problems not imaginary friends.

rofl edit again. Alt: I kinda agree with that, if anything I think belief is just something people do because they regard it as a good thing.
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
Reaver you really didn't need that wall of text it was quite unnecessary, also all those things you mentioned that religion can cause are not a by product of religion. I'm the last person you'll see saying religion can do no evil, the catholic churches stance on birth control is at best negligible, and at worst borderline criminal.

However I have to clarify, talking about existence is fine in my book but at the end of the day getting into lengthy debates about it is meaningless because it serves as a distraction to real problems. Yes you're right religious leaders with all their power can sway people to do an action against their own self interest, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the atrocities and indirect harm caused by religion doesn't have very much to do with religion at all. I would argue it's an eduction problem. Not enough people are educated and those people tend to rely on religion where those religious leaders abuse their power.

I've said this before, if you remove religion and god you would still awful things being done by people. Religion is to narrow of a subject, if you look at the bigger picture any institution which causes you to not think is inheritable bad.

Even if it was possible to invalidate the existence of god empirically what's to say people would stop believing in silly notions of virgin births and imaginary friends looking out for you.

EDIT: underdog: I'm arguing about this from a cynical stand point, which again why should it matter anymore? Science has all but refuted every thing religion has held dear except for god. I would argue again that thousands of years of debate have shown one thing and that's either side cannot make definite claim one way or another. Disbelief might be logical but people don't look for logic they look for proof. Fact of the matter is as long as god is a grey area you're going to have constant disagreements, so instead of even attacking the problem of god, I would rather focus it on other area's and real problems not imaginary friends.

rofl edit again. Alt: I kinda agree with that, if anything I think belief is just something people do because they regard it as a good thing.
I apologize if it seemed overboard in terms of length. I thought 9 paragraphs was a nice middling length considering there was several topics I was trying to cover, though it seems I wasn't too successful at it.

But, nonetheless, I feel that I haven't done a good job communicating that I feel that the god belief is indeed and integral part of the whole belief set, the whole religious scheme. You can't really deal with a branch of it without dealing with the main trunk that those beliefs and ideas come from, or at least having an argument for when it reaches that point because it almost always will.

I wouldn't disagree either that it's an education issue, but not in the sense they aren't educated enough all the time. The god belief is something that can skew and deflect many years of and attempts at "proper" education. It's a belief that shapes the lens in which people view new information and how they can be educated.

I have no doubt that religion is not the only source of bad in the world, and I have no illusion that if somehow tomorrow everyone stopped believing in one religion or another, no one would ever do violent or dreadful things. However, at the moment, it is probably the largest and most condoned institution of "accept but do not question". From Pakistan and India, to North Korea with their god-esque leadership, to Palestine and Israel, I have little doubt that a world where the religious belief set is greatly diminished or even entirely gone (doubtful about that though) would be much improved.
 

Theftz22

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Hopewell, NJ
Aesir you miss the point. The point is that the truth or falsity of theism is highly important to life overall and every day. I don't see how the fact that there is disagreement changes that at all. Why should it matter is the question that post was attempting to answer.

So I'm not really sure what your argument is here. Are you claiming that the fact that there has always been disagreement somehow shows that the question is one which we simply can't answer and therefore we shouldn't be worried about it, or are you saying that this disagreement somehow disproves theism and thus god is irrelevant?

Both are flawed arguments I think but I'm still struggling to see what your claim here is.
 

Bob Jane T-Mart

Smash Ace
Joined
Dec 8, 2008
Messages
886
Location
Somewhere
I think that while it matters whether god exists or not as Underdogs pointed out, debating about it seems pointless outside of the fact that it is actually a bit of fun. You're not going to convince people with logic on an emotional subject such as religion. Emotions get in the way of your and their reasoning and eventually the topic goes around in circles because neither side is willing to back down.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Alt- If people don't really believe it, then can you please explain the thousands of martyrs that have died for their faith.

And what about suicide bombers? You really think they'd kill themselves if they didn't believe they'd be achieving eternal communion with their God?

:phone:
 

Reaver197

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 30, 2006
Messages
1,287
I think that while it matters whether god exists or not as Underdogs pointed out, debating about it seems pointless outside of the fact that it is actually a bit of fun. You're not going to convince people with logic on an emotional subject such as religion. Emotions get in the way of your and their reasoning and eventually the topic goes around in circles because neither side is willing to back down.
That's patently untrue. People have and continue to change their minds. I doubt that any one discussion or debate will suddenly make someone switch opinion, but over time, with enough exposure and reflection, people can and do change their minds.
 

AltF4

BRoomer
BRoomer
Joined
Dec 13, 2005
Messages
5,042
Location
2.412 – 2.462 GHz
Alt- If people don't really believe it, then can you please explain the thousands of martyrs that have died for their faith.

And what about suicide bombers? You really think they'd kill themselves if they didn't believe they'd be achieving eternal communion with their God?

:phone:
Obviously the answer is that it isn't 100% NOBODY that truly believes. I couldn't speculate as to a percentage. But I'd say most don't.
 
Top Bottom