Is it meaningless to debate how much truth is in religion?

[DiscipleOfTruth]

It's interesting to watch two opposing sides defend what they believe but is it really just a waste of time? A debate for the accuracy of truth in a religion is seemingly impossible. Faith based religions are satisfied with faith over evidence and what is evidence for them comes from the source(faith) that defines how everything and everyone confirms their faith to them.

Atheism(the category that believes there is no God)places the faith that there isn't a God. The way these type of unbelievers think is of the use of logic and a need for evidence before accepting a religion. But because the faith based religion is satisfied with not providing this logical evidence to the believers or unbelievers for the sake of leaving faith a capability even if they were able to provide it, this type of atheist will never be convinced. And will use everything and everyone as a confirmation of their own faith that God doesn't exist.

The agnostic(the one that says ''I don't know if there is a God'') will watch the two sides rival each other for how interesting or entertaining it could be. And since I happen to be this type of agnostic then I can say, personally, it's like watching two lawyers in a court room who know they will probably not be able to convince the other side, yet continue the trial to see which one could win over the minds of everyone watching.

The unbeliever who is curious of whether or not God exist can only hope through the advancements of humanity in the future that such evidence could be provided if it even exist.

The believer is satisfied regardless of what happens. Not saying all believers because I know some of them struggle with their own doubts and whatever else. But for the most part it's highly probably that religion will always have believers that are satisfied regardless if evidence is ever discovered or not.

So what we have here in general is believers who would hope to win more people for God in their defence of their faith. And unbelievers(the ones that strongly oppose this faith) are hoping through their attacks to cause a believer to lose their faith and start to think on a ''logical'' level. And everyone else in between either believes or doesn't for whatever ever reason or observers the battle between these two groups of people for whatever it's worth. But that's just it, what is it really worth? Some unbelievers get offended about how a person can believe that a god would do horrible things to them and those they love for rejecting their god. Believers get offended at how unbelievers beliefs attack their religion because it doesn't make sense to them(I am guilty as well, I know I must of fustrated a great deal of believers irl unintentionally by using my logic over desiring faith). The true believer sincerely accepts their beliefs are true by faith and therefore anything that opposes their beliefs is in opposition against their God which hurts them deeply. So everyone naturally fustrates the side they are debating with, and some people get their feelings hurt and get really emotionally and mentally beat up over it, and when it's all said and done, no one has proved anything. No one has proved their own beliefs are right or that the opposites is wrong.

Maybe it's best to just agree to disagree. I mean defending yourself when it directly affects you irl(in real life) is one thing, but on a forum it just seems like there's nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I've actually made the decision that if a believer of any faith irl ask me why I don't believe what they believe that I will just say I prefer not to talk about it. I remember explaining to a group of believers why I didn't believe what they do and it bothered them. It bothered them because my beliefs are an attack against their faith regardless if I intend it to be or not. Which would make me feel bad afterwards, not for my unbelief, but rather for how the details of my unbelief made them uncomfortable. Which was shown in their facial expressions. They didn't convince me, I didn't convince them, but no one usually walks away from that type of situation feeling excited.

I'm not saying don't debate the amount of accuracy in religion. Regardless of my thoughts I'm just the new person around here and I'm not looking to make anyone do anything. Just asking is it really worth the effort and time that's put into it?. Faith versus the desire for undeniable evidence, but there isn't much of a middle ground to work from so that either side can convince the other or anyone else.

[Moses Yoder]

It's interesting to watch two opposing sides defend what they believe but is it really just a waste of time? A debate for the accuracy of truth in a religion is seemingly impossible. Faith based religions are satisfied with faith over evidence and what is evidence for them comes from the source(faith) that defines how everything and everyone confirms their faith to them.

Atheism(the category that believes there is no God)places the faith that there isn't a God. The way these type of unbelievers think is of the use of logic and a need for evidence before accepting a religion. But because the faith based religion is satisfied with not providing this logical evidence to the believers or unbelievers for the sake of leaving faith a capability even if they were able to provide it, this type of atheist will never be convinced. And will use everything and everyone as a confirmation of their own faith that God doesn't exist.

The agnostic(the one that says ''I don't know if there is a God'') will watch the two sides rival each other for how interesting or entertaining it could be. And since I happen to be this type of agnostic then I can say, personally, it's like watching two lawyers in a court room who know they will probably not be able to convince the other side, yet continue the trial to see which one could win over the minds of everyone watching.

The unbeliever who is curious of whether or not God exist can only hope through the advancements of humanity in the future that such evidence could be provided if it even exist.

The believer is satisfied regardless of what happens. Not saying all believers because I know some of them struggle with their own doubts and whatever else. But for the most part it's highly probably that religion will always have believers that are satisfied regardless if evidence is ever discovered or not.

So what we have here in general is believers who would hope to win more people for God in their defence of their faith. And unbelievers(the ones that strongly oppose this faith) are hoping through their attacks to cause a believer to lose their faith and start to think on a ''logical'' level. And everyone else in between either believes or doesn't for whatever ever reason or observers the battle between these two groups of people for whatever it's worth. But that's just it, what is it really worth? Some unbelievers get offended about how a person can believe that a god would do horrible things to them and those they love for rejecting their god. Believers get offended at how unbelievers beliefs attack their religion because it doesn't make sense to them(I am guilty as well, I know I must of fustrated a great deal of believers irl unintentionally by using my logic over desiring faith). The true believer sincerely accepts their beliefs are true by faith and therefore anything that opposes their beliefs is in opposition against their God which hurts them deeply. So everyone naturally fustrates the side they are debating with, and some people get their feelings hurt and get really emotionally and mentally beat up over it, and when it's all said and done, no one has proved anything. No one has proved their own beliefs are right or that the opposites is wrong.

Maybe it's best to just agree to disagree. I mean defending yourself when it directly affects you irl(in real life) is one thing, but on a forum it just seems like there's nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I've actually made the decision that if a believer of any faith irl ask me why I don't believe what they believe that I will just say I prefer not to talk about it. I remember explaining to a group of believers why I didn't believe what they do and it bothered them. It bothered them because my beliefs are an attack against their faith regardless if I intend it to be or not. Which would make me feel bad afterwards, not for my unbelief, but rather for how the details of my unbelief made them uncomfortable. Which was shown in their facial expressions. They didn't convince me, I didn't convince them, but no one usually walks away from that type of situation feeling excited.

I'm not saying don't debate the amount of accuracy in religion. Regardless of my thoughts I'm just the new person around here and I'm not looking to make anyone do anything. Just asking is it really worth the effort and time that's put into it?. Faith versus the desire for undeniable evidence, but there isn't much of a middle ground to work from so that either side can convince the other or anyone else.

When I first signed on here, I thought I would find a number of Christians debating theology. What I found instead was a wide variety of people who call themselves Christians and don't believe anything like I do, plus athiest, agnostic, and everyone in between.

So it has turned out to be an education. If I can't tolerate and learn from those who believe differently from me, I have a character flaw. To gain knowledge of how other people think, the arguments they have against my religion, etc., is a very beneficial pursuit. In fact, if someone came up with an argument that I was unable to refute in my mind, that would change my beliefs. To study an argument and judge it's merits and consider why I believe the way I do makes my faith stronger. If it were to make it weaker, perhaps I should look into a different faith.

So yes, I believe it is well worth my time here. Eternal consequences are riding on the outcome.

[Thatguy]

I've actually made the decision that if a believer of any faith irl ask me why I don't believe what they believe that I will just say I prefer not to talk about it.

Personally, I find that one of the reasons I enjoy debating the issues online, or watching others do so, is that I, too, rarely do it in daily life. Before doing so in person, I have to get agreement from the other person that even though the subject involves deeply personal beliefs, we will not take it personally. I'll disengage if the other person seems hurt by the discussion. So an internet discussion allows me to talk about these matters with people already predisposed to debate and who accept the ground rules.

Thinking about the topics is not enough. I can be sure in my mind that I've come up with a great idea or a very clear way of looking at things. It is only when I run the idea by others who disagree with me that I come to see the flaws in my thinking. Debating also makes me research my own views more thoroughly.

If my goal were to convince others to change their religion, I wouldn't bother. There's too little chance of that and I'm not sure it's my job to do that anyway.

Not debating can lead to a certain smugness, the idea that I know the truth but am humoring the people who get it wrong. Debating reminds me that I can't prove my position either, making me (paradoxically, perhaps) more confirmed in my agnosticism.

[His Name Is John]

To paraphrase Aquinas; in one way we can never really know God, but that doesn't mean we should try.

[OpiatefortheMasses]

I've actually made the decision that if a believer of any faith irl ask me why I don't believe what they believe that I will just say I prefer not to talk about it.

Personally, I find that one of the reasons I enjoy debating the issues online, or watching others do so, is that I, too, rarely do it in daily life. Before doing so in person, I have to get agreement from the other person that even though the subject involves deeply personal beliefs, we will not take it personally. I'll disengage if the other person seems hurt by the discussion. So an internet discussion allows me to talk about these matters with people already predisposed to debate and who accept the ground rules.

Thinking about the topics is not enough. I can be sure in my mind that I've come up with a great idea or a very clear way of looking at things. It is only when I run the idea by others who disagree with me that I come to see the flaws in my thinking. Debating also makes me research my own views more thoroughly.

If my goal were to convince others to change their religion, I wouldn't bother. There's too little chance of that and I'm not sure it's my job to do that anyway.

Not debating can lead to a certain smugness, the idea that I know the truth but am humoring the people who get it wrong. Debating reminds me that I can't prove my position either, making me (paradoxically, perhaps) more confirmed in my agnosticism.

I definitely agree. I was told throughout my childhood that discussing religion/ personal beliefs was taboo but I always thought it was something that needed to be addressed more often. When you consider how religion effects some many aspects of both believer's and non-believer's lives then it begs to be addressed. If you truly want to understand the mindset of someone's beliefs that differ or even polarize your own then civil discourse seems to be the way to go.

[Bust Nak]

It's interesting to watch two opposing sides defend what they believe but is it really just a waste of time?

Time is not wasted if you are enjoying yourself. If I stop enjoying posting here, then it would be a waste of time, and I would definitely stop posting.

[orthodox skeptic]

[quote="DiscipleOfTruth"]It's interesting to watch two opposing sides defend what they believe but is it really just a waste of time? A debate for the accuracy of truth in a religion is seemingly impossible. Faith based religions are satisfied with faith over evidence and what is evidence for them comes from the source(faith) that defines how everything and everyone confirms their faith to them.

Atheism(the category that believes there is no God)places the faith that there isn't a God. The way these type of unbelievers think is of the use of logic and a need for evidence before accepting a religion. But because the faith based religion is satisfied with not providing this logical evidence to the believers or unbelievers for the sake of leaving faith a capability even if they were able to provide it, this type of atheist will never be convinced. And will use everything and everyone as a confirmation of their own faith that God doesn't exist.

The agnostic(the one that says ''I don't know if there is a God'') will watch the two sides rival each other for how interesting or entertaining it could be. And since I happen to be this type of agnostic then I can say, personally, it's like watching two lawyers in a court room who know they will probably not be able to convince the other side, yet continue the trial to see which one could win over the minds of everyone watching.

The unbeliever who is curious of whether or not God exist can only hope through the advancements of humanity in the future that such evidence could be provided if it even exist.

The believer is satisfied regardless of what happens. Not saying all believers because I know some of them struggle with their own doubts and whatever else. But for the most part it's highly probably that religion will always have believers that are satisfied regardless if evidence is ever discovered or not.

So what we have here in general is believers who would hope to win more people for God in their defence of their faith. And unbelievers(the ones that strongly oppose this faith) are hoping through their attacks to cause a believer to lose their faith and start to think on a ''logical'' level. And everyone else in between either believes or doesn't for whatever ever reason or observers the battle between these two groups of people for whatever it's worth. But that's just it, what is it really worth? Some unbelievers get offended about how a person can believe that a god would do horrible things to them and those they love for rejecting their god. Believers get offended at how unbelievers beliefs attack their religion because it doesn't make sense to them(I am guilty as well, I know I must of fustrated a great deal of believers irl unintentionally by using my logic over desiring faith). The true believer sincerely accepts their beliefs are true by faith and therefore anything that opposes their beliefs is in opposition against their God which hurts them deeply. So everyone naturally fustrates the side they are debating with, and some people get their feelings hurt and get really emotionally and mentally beat up over it, and when it's all said and done, no one has proved anything. No one has proved their own beliefs are right or that the opposites is wrong.

Maybe it's best to just agree to disagree. I mean defending yourself when it directly affects you irl(in real life) is one thing, but on a forum it just seems like there's nothing to gain and everything to lose.

I've actually made the decision that if a believer of any faith irl ask me why I don't believe what they believe that I will just say I prefer not to talk about it. I remember explaining to a group of believers why I didn't believe what they do and it bothered them. It bothered them because my beliefs are an attack against their faith regardless if I intend it to be or not. Which would make me feel bad afterwards, not for my unbelief, but rather for how the details of my unbelief made them uncomfortable. Which was shown in their facial expressions. They didn't convince me, I didn't convince them, but no one usually walks away from that type of situation feeling excited.

I'm not saying don't debate the amount of accuracy in religion. Regardless of my thoughts I'm just the new person around here and I'm not looking to make anyone do anything. Just asking is it really worth the effort and time that's put into it?. Faith versus the desire for undeniable evidence, but there isn't much of a middle ground to work from so that either side can convince the other or anyone else.

I like to use the following when a discussion arises relative to your subject. I believe it to be most poignant.
A mid 19th century journalist, John Godfrey Saxe noted for his humorous verse penned a poe entitled: "The Blind Men and the Elephant." It is too long to recite in its entirety so I'll just hit the apprpriate text:
It tells of six wise men of Hindoostan(sic) all of whom are blind. They determine to discover what an elephant looks like. Each encounters a different part of the elephant's anatomy...the side-a wall; the tusk...a spear; the tail...a snake: the leg...a tree; the ear...a fan; the trunk...a hose.
A lively debate ensues. The poem ends with the following moral:

Oft times in theologic wars
The disputants I wean
Rail on in total ignorance
of what each other mean
And prate about an elephant
Not one of them has seen!

[cnorman18]

Re the title question; It depends on what you mean by "truth."

Literal, historical truth? Not likely.

Scientific truth? Even less so.

Moral or ethical truth? Maybe, but certainly not lying around on the surface in the Bible. One has to look a bit more deeply than that.

Philosophical truth? Maybe again, but there are many different points of view in the Bible, from Job to Psalms to Ecclesiastes, never mind among the various -- and wildly different -- religions in the world.

Maybe "truth" is to be found in the rational human debate on these things. That's the Jewish take on it. As I said to Joey, "Our God-given sense of right and wrong is all we have; that's all anyone has."

Religious or not. From where I sit, the battle has never been between atheism and belief; it's between thinking and unreflective brainlessness, between responsibility for our own actions and acceptance of easy, pat answers. And both approaches can be found on both sides of the belief/unbelief debate. That's there's more of one than the other on a given side is beyond doubt, but still...

[Quath]

I feel like there is a term issue that may be clouding some of this. Theism is a belief that God or gods are real. Atheism is the belief they are not real. Gnosticism is a belief in 100% truth of your conviction. Agnosticism is a belief that there is not 100% truth in the conviction.

Most atheists are really agnostic atheists. They don't believe in God or gods, but they recognize that there is always a possibility no matter how small. There are gnostic atheists (like my wife) who say they know for 100% certainty that there is no god. The category of gnostic atheist is the only one where you can try to use "faith" to explain their view, but this is a rare position.

I think these debates may help out a person questioning their beliefs, but I doubt they change many people's minds in general. I personally find it useful to adjust my perceptions of people's beliefs for better or worse.

I think there is an advantage in that it helps us develop arguments for talking about it in real life. As an atheist, I will sometimes get asked questions like Pascals Wager or Lord, Liar or Lunatic or about staying in the closet. Debating here helps me answer those questions in a much better manner than if I winged it.

I find that most Christians I talk to don't know their religion as well as I do. I actually had a Mormon ask me if Mormons were Christians. She also asked if Catholics were Christians.

For most people, being religions is seen as being moral. So I have to address this issue a lot to explain why I don't go on killing rampages because I don't believe in God. I can find out here what responses work better than others.

[McCulloch]

I feel like there is a term issue that may be clouding some of this. Theism is a belief that God or gods are real. Atheism is the belief they are not real. Gnosticism is a belief in 100% truth of your conviction. Agnosticism is a belief that there is not 100% truth in the conviction.

Most atheists are really agnostic atheists. They don't believe in God or gods, but they recognize that there is always a possibility no matter how small.

Then there are the ignostics. Ignosticism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God. It comes in two flavors:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. We recognize the there is little agreement among theists as to what they mean when they use the term god. Furthermore, we have found that many of the definitions are unfalsifiable. I the case of an unfalsifiable definition of the word god we take the theological noncognitivist position (see [2] below) that the question of the existence of God is meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless. Essentially this is the same as the first definition, with the recognition that none of the current definitions of God are philosophically useful.