Is religion a valid argument in debate?

[taha116]

Dam ppl and thier beliefs (read on), so stupid we are. We either go with what we learn first usually our religon or second secularism, athiesm blablabla... Its all the same in the end it comes down to influence, wich is just stupid... grab all the info you can on different points of view and learn directly from the sources. Then decide wich makes sense to you, pre judging will occour but you need to control that part of your mind for a bit and learn everything related before taking sides. I am not an atheist at all and i am not some old angry guy either so dont just sterotype me like that please. All I am saying is that it seems most people believe in what they believe because they have a certain degree of predjiduce influencing them spawned by other people. People who are stupid would say its because my religon says so that i dont want abortion to someone who doesnt believe in that religion.

Religion however is backed up or destroyed through debates. If its clear that the evidence suggests that the religion is flawed... say somehow watching porn is really good for you. Then religons who condem such acts are obviosly flawed (i dont think its good for you).

Religion however has its place in arguments about abbortion.. lets say my holy book told me already that the earth is not in the center of the world, the earth is round and everything has water in it and the sun will blow up. Apparently these are all facts now due to science. I mean my dad recited to me these verses and his dad to him. It was their duty to memorize and maintain thier books. Now say science tells us that its all true (wich it apparently does) then it means that the book was very accurate and so far what hasnt been proven is pending investigation... Just like in probability questions you would suggest people select a most likley awnser. If there is a 80 percent chance it will rain i think i will atleast were a coat when i go outside. That 20 percent chance exsists but w/e. In the same way if so far 80% of the facts in a religous book are already prove true then why hesitate to believe it so much? Would u normally hesitate to take True and False questions in ur exam over Multiple choice if given the choice? NO! its likley that multiple choice will have more then 2 options for ansers and thefore its a bad idea to take it over T/F . See what i mean? So if its all a question about moral this and moral that if u judge science to be the universal method of detirmining right and wrong you can't always look at the facts plainly. Like the say "the plain and simple truth is rarley plain and never simple" youve gota think out of the box, like when som1 frames som1 for a crime it is setup so that all facts seem to indicate the som1 else. Yet usually when you look from out of the box u realise something fishy

BTW on abbortion my book says something like this:
It says abortion is allowed before a certain amount of time... guess what... apparently u dont really kill the baby untill a certain amount of time has passed and it says only for the mothers life is it allowed and if u must before this period of time passes..


P.S yes i am bad at explaining my mind properly. Its hard, i gotta rearrange the stuff that goes on in my head into something that makes sense to other people. This is my minds eye

0101010001011
1010100101000
1001010101011
1101010100111
0101010101010
0101010101001
0101010101001

All that actually means Pi=3.14 so im sorry if i didnt make much sense

 

[taha116]

wow was my post so crap that no1 knows what to say or was it so good i have silenced all? (I doubt the later one)

 

[wolflock]

Actually. I would choose Multiple choice questions before choosing T/F. But then again, I study, and thus have a better chance with either.

And everything is influenced by another, EVEN RELIGION.

 

[compass]

P.S yes i am bad at explaining my mind properly. Its hard, i gotta rearrange the stuff that goes on in my head into something that makes sense to other people. This is my minds eye

0101010001011
1010100101000
1001010101011
1101010100111
0101010101010
0101010101001
0101010101001

All that actually means Pi=3.14 so im sorry if i didnt make much sense

Man, you think in binary?!?!

As for the thread's question, my opinion is that, unless the debate is about religious issues, then religion is not a valid argument in a debate.
But the trouble is, different (religious) people have different (and and probably infinitely gradual) limits/rules about what constitutes a religious issue and what not.
There are even people that believe everything, each and every aspect of life is a religious issue. Luckily they are in a minority.

Religion, by its very definition, is a matter of belief and not of fact.

Yes, adherents to a certain religion are expected to broadly hold to similar convictions and, as such, come to a common "rule" or "value judgement" about a particular issue (similar to members of a political party).
But belief is (or should be) a deeply personal thing, you either have faith or you don't, and if you do have faith then you know.

When it comes to fundamental principles of one's religion then there is no debate, not ifs, no buts.
Which ultimately renders any debate that would contradict such "known" beliefs useless, as the faithfull's opinion cannot be really changed.

I am argumentative by nature and have had many discussions with religious friends. Ultimately, when their beliefs are balanced against logic (or what I think is logic) it all comes down to "I just know" or "I feel" and afterwards "you don't understand, this is spiritual not logical...", etc.

So frankly, nowadys, when the debate/discussion enters a phase where someone even alludes to God, sin, etc. I stop arguing.

 

[Singularity]

In general, debate is ideally, finding common fundamental ground, then arguing what that implies. In a sense, you might argue with a methodologically doubting epistemologist, who would answer every point you attempt to make with "Why?" or, "How do you know?", to which you eventually run into a regress where you can't prove anything. Anyone you debate with will have their fundamental beliefs fall between that, and agreeing with everything you say no matter what.

Religion in and of itself, is a fundamental belief, so if you're debating with someone who shares that belief, then it's valid. Or if you can make an argument that some other common ground implies certain beliefs within that religion, that also applies. But in general, religion is a fundamental assumption, as might be science or observation itself.

For example, if you're to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based on a religion, and someone else argues that fossil evidence suggests otherwise, you might be considered to be on weaker fundamentals, but ultimately, the other person doesn't know how old the earth is. They may have read it in a book, so they assume the book is correct, or they may have performed and experiment, in which case they assume that their method, or even the scientific method itself is sound.

So in the sense that everything is subjective from our perspectives, religion can be valid in an argument.

 

[vinkin]

It is a valid reason when you are alone, but when you are with the community our religion changes to HUMANS.

I dont think its a valid point to debate on religions.

 

[moiety]

For example, if you're to argue that the earth is 6,000 years old based on a religion, and someone else argues that fossil evidence suggests otherwise, you might be considered to be on weaker fundamentals, but ultimately, the other person doesn't know how old the earth is. They may have read it in a book, so they assume the book is correct, or they may have performed and experiment, in which case they assume that their method, or even the scientific method itself is sound.

So in the sense that everything is subjective from our perspectives, religion can be valid in an argument.

Going to have to disagree there. In a science versus religion; science will win every time because you always have the option of learning the background and verifying the facts for yourself by performing the experiment. That's what science is. Repeatable.
Religion, on the other hand is whatever you're told it is. And there's a longer train of trust there. God apparently spoke to a prophet; who wrote down the words; which was then translated from Aramaic into your language; and you receive the information and interpret it via your own preconceptions and social framework.

• God may not have expressed him/herself clearly
  The prophet could be drunk, lying or mad (prophets are not known for their stability)
  Prophets 2000 years ago were not known for literary skills, and clear, concise writing
  The prophet may have misinterpreted the words
  The translator may have misinterpreted; have an agenda of his/her own; be incompetent; or be drunk, lying or mad.
  Finally you may be misinterpreting the message. Assuming pure words, interpretation, writing & translation; you're still reading it from a cultural matrix that's 2000 years removed from the writer. They may not mean what you think they mean.

And morals are developed, not innate, to answer an earlier poster. We are born a blank slate with just the basic functions like eating and breathing built-in.

So. Can you base a moral argument on religion? Sure, if that religion is in a majority. Moral and immoral is whatever society at the time defines it as. Murder is inherently wrong? Definitely...to the person being murdered. There are times, like executing criminals and getting the enemy before they get you in a war, when murder is both moral and desirable. It's to prevent a worse outcome.

You do, of course, develop your own sense of morality. This is an amalgam of what people (starting with parents) and society (and religion if applicable) have told you is moral, plus any conclusions from thought you have devoted to the subject. From the evidence; not everbody's sense of morality is equal, equally developed, or equally present.

 

[chees3lom]

The current thread running through off-topic on porn has me curious about everyone's opinion - Is religion a valid argument in a debate involving ethics or morals? I think most people agree that in a scientific debate, religion is a very poor argument. If we were discussing the age of the world, saying that the earth is young because the Bible says so is an invalid argument, but for topics such as porn, abortion, euthenasia, and other moral / ethical topics, should religious beliefs be considered valid? If not, could they be considered valid in some limited scope?

while i do believe that in these days and times religion is stupid to get in a fight or argument about because with everything evolving so fast we can see that the crap that was suppossedly written many years ago doest make sense and we can see them trying to make changes to it
but i will leave you with a sentence that if you actually believe in reason will clear your mind
here it is :
If there is a god out there, SCIENCE will prove it, not religion.