Debate Rule Five

[jamesyaqub]

This is a religious debate forum. Religion is a largely a matter of opinion. In religion except where correlations can be made between what is claimed and known history or with recognized geographical situations, virtually nothing can be accepted except on the grounds of personal belief. "Facts" in religion are no more than a collection of opinions which have been agreed upon. So often a claim of being "of God" or that "God tells us" is accepted as evidence.

Since this forum is a debate place for Christianity (and other religions) it must follow that it would be OK to submit some scripture or other as evidence for a claim. The trouble is, as I stated in the first paragraph, that religious scriptures are mostly opinions voiced by other men of long ago who may or may not be any more capable of speaking truth than a man is today. Does the mere passage of time confer acceptability? It would not in science but in religion it does. I make the claim therefore that an opinion of today should be no less honoured than an opinion of ancient times. An opinion in religion cannot be considered as being other than evidence. An exception to this would be the specific debate over the meaning of scriptural passages. This would be an argument over opinions beginning and ending with other opinions. Religion, without beliefs and opinions, could not exist.

My contention therefore is that a requirement for providing evidence in matters of religion is answerable by stating an opinion. I believe that rule 5 is unacceptable in it's present wording. In science theories and opinions are fun things but only but they must be testable before they can be considered evidence. In religion opinions are facts. Rule 5 puts religion on an equal footing with science. It is illogical and nearly impossible to comply with.

As it exists now rule 5 can be used (by an unfriendly detractor) to degrade from what should be an enjoyable experience on this site. The rule for evidence in science must not be applied to a religious debate. When the sharing of ideas in religious matters are hampered by a requirement for scientifically acceptable evidences they are effectively censored.


This topic asks for a thoughtful review of forum rule 5 based on arguments presented above.

[Divine Insight]

In religion opinions are facts. Rule 5 puts religion on an equal footing with science. It is illogical and nearly impossible to comply with.

Hi jamesyaqub,

I tend to agree with your sentiment to a point. Religions are purely faith-based personal beliefs. And as such they are not subject to proof of verification.

However, I think it's fair when it comes to "debating" a faith-based belief the demand for evidence to back up those "faith-based beliefs" is in order. Otherwise what is there to debate?

You have your faith-based beliefs and I have mine. There is NOTHING to debate.

You say "In religion opinions are facts". But what sense does that make?

All you are saying is that you accept your "faith-based opinions" to be "fact", and I accept my "faith-based opinions" to be "fact".

Therefore there must exist two different and possibly opposing "facts". In other words, my facts must be just as valid as your facts, and so again, what is there to debate?

When debating religion one person is trying to argue that a particular religious belief has merit and should be believe because of,..... and then they state their arguments of why the religion should be believed.

But according to you the only reason they need to give then is "Because I say so".

Where is there any debate in that?

In truth, religions shouldn't even be debated. The only reason they are constantly debated is because religious fanatics demand and accuse non-believers of refusing to obey some imaginary God.

Therefore if they want to make these awful accusations toward "non-believers" they most certainly need to provide reasons over and above their mere opinion "Because I say so".

That's just not good enough.

So this is why evidence is required on a debate forum.

[otseng]

The rule for evidence in science must not be applied to a religious debate. When the sharing of ideas in religious matters are hampered by a requirement for scientifically acceptable evidences they are effectively censored.

For matters of science in the Science and Religion subforum, what you state is true:

While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... .php?t=216

In the C&A subforum, these guidelines apply to the usage of the Bible:

2. Avoid using the Bible as the sole source to prove that Christianity is true. However, using the Bible as the only source to argue what is authentic Christianity is legitimate.

3. For factual claims like the existence of individuals, places, and events, the Bible can be considered as providing evidence, but not necessarily conclusive evidence.

4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

[McCulloch]

Since this forum is a debate place for Christianity (and other religions) it must follow that it would be OK to submit some scripture or other as evidence for a claim.

Scripture is evidence, depending on what the question is. Scripture can be evidence as to the authentic teachings of any particular religion.

[jamesyaqub]

In religion opinions are facts. Rule 5 puts religion on an equal footing with science. It is illogical and nearly impossible to comply with.

Hi jamesyaqub,

I tend to agree with your sentiment to a point. Religions are purely faith-based personal beliefs. And as such they are not subject to proof of verification.

However, I think it's fair when it comes to "debating" a faith-based belief the demand for evidence to back up those "faith-based beliefs" is in order. Otherwise what is there to debate?

You have your faith-based beliefs and I have mine. There is NOTHING to debate.

You say "In religion opinions are facts". But what sense does that make?

All you are saying is that you accept your "faith-based opinions" to be "fact", and I accept my "faith-based opinions" to be "fact".

Therefore there must exist two different and possibly opposing "facts". In other words, my facts must be just as valid as your facts, and so again, what is there to debate?

When debating religion one person is trying to argue that a particular religious belief has merit and should be believe because of,..... and then they state their arguments of why the religion should be believed.

But according to you the only reason they need to give then is "Because I say so".

Where is there any debate in that?

In truth, religions shouldn't even be debated. The only reason they are constantly debated is because religious fanatics demand and accuse non-believers of refusing to obey some imaginary God.

Therefore if they want to make these awful accusations toward "non-believers" they most certainly need to provide reasons over and above their mere opinion "Because I say so".

That's just not good enough.

So this is why evidence is required on a debate forum.

What else is there to debate? IDEAS, that's what!

The entire Bible, except for references to known geography and provable history, is nothing but opinions of men who lived a long time ago. They provide no evidence beyond heresay. This is why I claim that in religion opinions are facts.

Take a look around this forum and read here and there. People talk about things all the time there is no evidence for. Is there any evidence for Jesus being a real person? No. There's only hearsay as contained in the NT.

Rule 5, and you, say that we must supply evidence for what we claim. If this is so then no one on this forum had better ever mention Jesus or God or angels or Satan or demons.....etc because there is zero evidence for any of these.

Opinions and ideals may be debated successfully. Truth is all around us. We err greatly when we demand something which cannot be provided.

The general purpose for evidence is that it is useful in beginning a series of tests from which truth may be discovered. In religion nothing can be tested so demanding evidence is an exercise in emptiness.

Think.... what evidence does any of have for anything we have ever written on this site? [/b]

[jamesyaqub]

Since this forum is a debate place for Christianity (and other religions) it must follow that it would be OK to submit some scripture or other as evidence for a claim.

Scripture is evidence, depending on what the question is. Scripture can be evidence as to the authentic teachings of any particular religion.

Do you believe that we humans have souls? Me too. If rule five stands as is none of us may discuss a soul because there is no evidence for it's existence.

This is an example of what I mean when I say rule five constitutes censorship.

[Divine Insight]

The general purpose for evidence is that it is useful in beginning a series of tests from which truth may be discovered. In religion nothing can be tested so demanding evidence is an exercise in emptiness.

I absolutely agree with you jamesyaqub,

In fact, I thought I already expressed a similar view.

There is no reason to "debate" religion. And therefore there shouldn't be any religious people in the religion debate forum at all, IMHO.

In fact there shouldn't be anyone in the debate forums at all. Maybe in the general discussion forums, or "Bible Study" forums, etc. But they shouldn't be debating religion.

I'll be more than glad to share with you my views of the Bible. I can sum it up easily. For me the Old Testament appears to be absolute total mythology that has no more merit than Greek mythology. The New Testament appears to me to be grossly exaggerated and superstitious myths and rumors about a guy who might have actually live, argued against orthodox Judaism of his day, and was possibly crucified for apostasy. I further speculate that this man may have been a mystic-minded Jew who was educated in Eastern Mysticism possibly Mahayana Buddhism, or Jainism, or something along those lines.

I would be happy to "discuss" those view with someone who is merely interested to hear what I believe.

I'm not interested in "debating" them. I'm also not interested in hearing other people's views who are going to argue for the whole biblical picture suggesting that Jesus was the son of God, etc. I've rejected that entirely and I haven't heard a meaningful case for it yet. So I have to simply be honest and just say that I'm not interested in hearing the same thing over and over again.

So in terms of "discussion", most people aren't interested in my views, and neither am I interested in theirs.

However, when it comes to "debate" it's almost always Christians trying to prove the Bible or Jesus. And if they are trying to "prove" something then it does indeed become a "debate".

And since they are claiming that they have valid reasons why they think I should believe this stuff, then why shouldn't they be required to back that claim up with evidence?

Otherwise, why are they out to "prove" something?

Why don't they give it up and just confess that their views of the Bible have no more merit than mine?

But then we're back to just merely discussing different views rather than "debating" them. And discussions shouldn't become arguments. You state your beliefs, I state mine, and that's that.

There is nothing to contest.

I don't demand that you reject the Bible, and you don't demand that I should believe in it.

I wish that was the way religions were, then we would never see a religion debate forum ever. There would be no need for one.

[McCulloch]

Since this forum is a debate place for Christianity (and other religions) it must follow that it would be OK to submit some scripture or other as evidence for a claim.

Scripture is evidence, depending on what the question is. Scripture can be evidence as to the authentic teachings of any particular religion.

Do you believe that we humans have souls? Me too. [/b]

I do not believe that humans have souls. I don't quite know what a soul is.
If you wish to state in debate that you believe that humans have souls, that is fine. It may be a factual statement about your belief, that no one need debate. However, if you wish to state that humans have souls, then you must provide some sort of support for that statement: evidence, reason or logic.

If rule five stands as is none of us may discuss a soul because there is no evidence for it's existence.

This is an example of what I mean when I say rule five constitutes censorship.[/b]

If you wish to argue some point that depends on humans having souls, but you don't wish to support that assumption then debate conditionally. Something like, "If humans have eternal souls, then we must have had an existence prior to our birth as well as an afterlife" or "Assuming souls exist, can a soul be split in two? "
It is not about censorship, but about having a valid debate. Debate is not about merely expressing your opinion, but supporting that opinion with evidence, reason and logic.

[heavensgate]

This is a religious debate forum. Religion is a largely a matter of opinion. In religion except where correlations can be made between what is claimed and known history or with recognized geographical situations, virtually nothing can be accepted except on the grounds of personal belief. "Facts" in religion are no more than a collection of opinions which have been agreed upon. So often a claim of being "of God" or that "God tells us" is accepted as evidence.

Since this forum is a debate place for Christianity (and other religions) it must follow that it would be OK to submit some scripture or other as evidence for a claim. The trouble is, as I stated in the first paragraph, that religious scriptures are mostly opinions voiced by other men of long ago who may or may not be any more capable of speaking truth than a man is today. Does the mere passage of time confer acceptability? It would not in science but in religion it does. I make the claim therefore that an opinion of today should be no less honoured than an opinion of ancient times. An opinion in religion cannot be considered as being other than evidence. An exception to this would be the specific debate over the meaning of scriptural passages. This would be an argument over opinions beginning and ending with other opinions. Religion, without beliefs and opinions, could not exist.

My contention therefore is that a requirement for providing evidence in matters of religion is answerable by stating an opinion. I believe that rule 5 is unacceptable in it's present wording. In science theories and opinions are fun things but only but they must be testable before they can be considered evidence. In religion opinions are facts. Rule 5 puts religion on an equal footing with science. It is illogical and nearly impossible to comply with.

As it exists now rule 5 can be used (by an unfriendly detractor) to degrade from what should be an enjoyable experience on this site. The rule for evidence in science must not be applied to a religious debate. When the sharing of ideas in religious matters are hampered by a requirement for scientifically acceptable evidences they are effectively censored.


This topic asks for a thoughtful review of forum rule 5 based on arguments presented above.

I tend to agree Jamesyaqub.
I have always thought it strange that a naturalist will demand empirical evidence in a scientific sense as the fortress of naturalistic thinking, yet only allow subjectivity when it comes to behaviour and morals.
In this there is the admission that there are areas of human experience where there is no objectivity available except perhaps in statistics.
Since God is not an object, it stands to reason that the rules of evidence from a naturalistic POV is ruled out of court. And this I think is some of the cosmic impetus behind the commandment to 'Have no other Gods before Me' and the commandment against idols.
God cannot be represented....but He can be known. It is in this unique 'knowing' where the Christian finds that he or she is more known by God rather than by knowing God in an objective way. Apart from the many other aspects that the Bible and God can be discussed with some reasonable clarity is in History as you say, Archaeology, and the correlation of facts of the natural / human world as it relates to Gods revelation to us. This can be argued from the natural world itself, as well as from the more spiritual aspects of human nature such as love, altruism and across the spectrum to hate.
I agree.
Jim

[Divine Insight]

I tend to agree Jamesyaqub.
I have always thought it strange that a naturalist will demand empirical evidence in a scientific sense as the fortress of naturalistic thinking, yet only allow subjectivity when it comes to behaviour and morals.
In this there is the admission that there are areas of human experience where there is no objectivity available except perhaps in statistics.

But the very concept of morality is itself a subjective concept to begin with. It can't be made scientific precisely because it has no objective existence.

In fact, just take a look around at the natural world and ask, "What do you see?"

What you see is nature taking the lives of innocent people and animals, often in very horrific ways. Natural disasters like storms, volcano, forest fires started by lightening, etc, as all examples of nature acting in ways that clearly have no moral basis whatsoever.

We also see natural things like parasites, bacteria, viruses, genetic mutations, birth defects, etc. Again inflicting pain, agony and death on totally innocent victims.

When we look at the natural world we see animals eating other animals, and even stealing babies or eggs from nest. There is clearly no natural morality associated with the animal kingdom. It's quite literally a dog-eat-dog natural world.

So from a scientific point of view we can say, 'Yes, there is no objective morality in this universe. Any sense of morality that humans feel associated with is clearly their own invention that has nothing at all to do with any objective reality."

There is no such thing as objective morality. That is a clearly observable scientific fact of nature.

You say:

In this there is the admission that there are areas of human experience where there is no objectivity available except perhaps in statistics.

And what's wrong with that?

That is a fact. Humans create their own subjective experience when it comes to think such as what they believe to be moral or immoral. The only statistics that can be meaningful in this regard is to take a survey of the subjective opinions of the humans themselves. Thus verifying that the concept of morality is indeed entirely a human invention.

This is not to say that this cannot be a valuable trait of humans to have invented the notion of morality. It can indeed be quite valuable especially since humans are a social species where law and order play a major role in keeping the peace and protecting one human from another.

But that doesn't make morality objective in any cosmic or natural sense. So science is not lacking an understanding of morality. On the contrary, it has shown us precisely from when morality arises and the fact that it is indeed a subjective opinion of humans that needs to become consensual to some degree if large societies are going to be successful.

So science not only acknowledges and recognizes subjective morality but it can even measure it in terms of the subjective statistics that you have referenced. And in the world of politics this is called democracy.

Ironically, even then, within democracy, it is recognized that we can't just allow the majority to rule without restraint. Why not? Well, precisely because morality is indeed subjective. And because of this one particular group that happens to be the majority group can easily create moral statistics that favor their group over other minority groups. In fact this is often a large problem with democracies. There needs to be safeguards put into place to be sure that majority groups don't end up bullying minority groups.

Why is that necessary? Well, precisely because morality is indeed subjective and not objective.

So science has an understanding of morality well under control. And thankfully some democracies also manage to curb the tendency of subjective morality from allowing majority groups to bully minority groups.

So you haven't bought forth an issue that science doesn't already have nailed.

And this may even be because, in your mind, you may very well be thinking that some sort of objective morality actually does exist, but that it just happens to be beyond the reach of science. That is simply untrue. There is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is subjective opinion and that is basically a scientifically confirmed fact. Because as I have illustrated above, human morality is not innate to nature. Nor is it innate to the animal kingdom either.

Since God is not an object, it stands to reason that the rules of evidence from a naturalistic POV is ruled out of court. And this I think is some of the cosmic impetus behind the commandment to 'Have no other Gods before Me' and the commandment against idols.

The commandment "Have no other Gods before Me", comes from a very ignorant and obviously false mythology. There is no evidence that such a jealous God exists.

Moreover, you need to understand that this Jealous-God to which you reference is the fodder for countless disagreeing religious mythologies. These run the spectrum of many different subjective opinions in Judaism, Islam, Catholicism, and a myriad of protesting Protestantisms. And all of those have their own inner disagreements.

There is no single "Jealous God Religion". It has already fractured into a myriad of disagreeing subjective superstitions.

In fact, these Hebrew myths are actually quite immoral in many ways which atheists constantly point out. Christianity is the most immoral of all with its myth of this Jealous-God supposedly having a demigod Son who is then crucified on a pole by this God's own Chief Priests and then having the masses held hostage by this hideous act proclaiming that if they refuse to condone it on their behalf they will be cast into the pits of eternal damnation and suffer torment for eternity.

Christianity is the epitome of subjective immorality.

God cannot be represented....but He can be known. It is in this unique 'knowing' where the Christian finds that he or she is more known by God rather than by knowing God in an objective way.

And that is nothing but a hope and dream of the Christian. It's called "Faith".

Moreover, I can't imagine why anyone would want to place their faith in an ancient myth of a Jealous-God who demands that everyone must condone having his Son nailed to a pole on their behalf before they can be considered for "Grace".

That is a terrible thing for anyone to place their faith in, IMHO.

If the story were true and this Jealous-God actually did exist I would need to refuse his ultimatum in any case because my subjective morality demands better than that. I would need to stoop to the pits of immorality to become a Christian.

I wouldn't even want to live forever after having stooped that low.

So if the Christian God is real, I choose eternal damnation. I give this God no choice in the matter and rape him of any free will he might have thought he had.

Apart from the many other aspects that the Bible and God can be discussed with some reasonable clarity is in History as you say, Archaeology, and the correlation of facts of the natural / human world as it relates to Gods revelation to us. This can be argued from the natural world itself, as well as from the more spiritual aspects of human nature such as love, altruism and across the spectrum to hate.

But none of that is true.

It can't be argue from the natural world itself. The natural world itself is nor a moral entity. We live in a natural dog-eat-dog world that is filled with natural disasters, disease, and animals that ruthlessly eat each other and some of them have even eaten humans.

If every human being on planet Earth were to become a pure saint and never commit another immoral act again, the world would still be filled with natural disasters, disease and animals that eat each other and are also a threat to unwary humans who might accidentally get in their way. Like innocently swimming on a beach where there just happens to be a hungry shark lurking.

Your claim that some sort of objective morality exists that science is unable to address is simply wrong. Science has addressed the issue and the conclusion is necessarily that morality is entirely a subjective human invention that is not innate to nature at large.

And let's not forget, if you insist on pressing this, then you would need to lay the blame for natural disasters, disease, and animals eating each other entirely on the shoulders of humans.

Get real.