Can we all agree not to debate religion on TSR?

That's not happening.

Yeah, probably not. But I just spend a whole bunch of time writing that thing so I'm not letting my hopes down just yet.

I'll pray for you.

I'll be the first to take my own advice;

I am an atheist, and though I do not agree with your beliefs I will not argue with them out of respect and better judgement.

I bet your thread was the major 🔑 to triggering this thread.

It was the "Theist burden to proof" one, whoever wrote that.

That thread was started because @shameful_burrito told atheists to justify themselves.

Chain reaction 😂😂

Let's all be reasonable here.

I am going to argue that more harm than good is done through debating religion/spirituality on TSR, and that we shouldn't do it.

TL;DR (too lazy, didn't read):



1) Debates just turn into arguments

I will have to admit, this is a personal observation and I do not have proof that this is always true. But I do think that everyone who has been involved in a religious debate can agree with me on this one, irrespective of which side you took.

What may start out as a civilised discussion very quickly turns into a cesspool of logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments (insults). People start to call each other idiots. People write before they think, instead of the other way round. What should be neutrality instead becomes hostility. What can you hope to achieve when this occurs?

2) Who's mind is being changed?

Epistemology is a fancy word for how and why people 'know' things. Different people have different epistemologies, meaning they accept something to be true depending on different criteria. Two people can hold the same opinion, but for different reasons (and they will have gotten that opinion through different means).

Some people decide that they believe in something through scientific evidence. This isn't necessarily always a good thing (it is not convenient, for example, to ask your mother for a peer-reviewed study if she tells you that bananas are good for you).

Whereas others may believe something because they were brought up with that belief, or heard it from an authority figure. Christian families tend to have Christian kids, atheist families tend to have atheist kids etc. This can also be with friends, the community etc.

Almost everyone has a mixture of the two (and there are more than just two), but may use different ones for different topics (e.g: spiritual beliefs and whether or not bananas are good for you). The problem arises when someone of one epistemology tries to debate with someone of another epistemology on the same topic. My mother is religious, but not because of scientific evidence (there isn't any) and she is okay with that. But what that means is, I have no hope of changing her mind into becoming an atheist because none of my arguments will matter to her.

Basically all people hold religious or other spiritual beliefs not because of scientific evidence. And some people are atheist (for example) solely because there is a lack of scientific evidence for religion (in which case non-scientific arguments will not appeal to them). So how on earth do you think you are going to change someone's mind with arguments that don't mean a grain of salt to them? (Remember, this is a question to all sides of the debate.)

Sidenote:
I would also like to mention that one particular argument keeps popping up from atheists which I find particularly ignorant of the scientific method:

"There is no irrefutable proof for the existence of God."

And a very similar sounding one from the theists:

"There is nothing that irrefutably disproves God."

This is not how science works. With mathematics we can write a proof that is correct and irrefutable. However, with the sciences, you can never have 100% proof that something is true. So then how does science work? Well luckily you can prove that something is false. This is called falsifiability and is a fundamental part of science. What this means is that you accept the 'best' theory available to you i.e. whichever one hasn't been proven false.

Say there are two opposing hypotheses:
- "Copper can conduct electricity"
- "Copper cannot conduct electricity"

A test is done. In the test, a battery, some wire and a light bulb are all hooked up to a lump of copper. When the battery is put in, the bulb turns on. Lets assume for argument's sake that the only way the bulb could have turned on was if that lump of copper could conduct electricity (and that the lump was indeed made of copper).

We consider the first statement to be true, not because we proved it true, but we proved the second to be false and the only other theory was the first. Of course, this is a simplified view of what science and the scientific method really are in reality, but it is sufficient nonetheless for the argument I am making.

All scientific knowledge is falsifiable. If evidence came along that truly proved that the hypothesis "copper can conduct electricity" was false in at least one scenario, then the hypothesis would be abandoned, or at least revised. So the only way the theory "God exists" could be undermined was if evidence came along that proved it false. Which is impossible (I can explain why, but this is already getting quite long). So because that theory is not falsifiable, it cannot be science.

So atheists, stop saying that theists need to "prove" God's existence, and theists: stop saying that atheists need to "disprove" God's existence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the wall of text. I'm bored, and I wanted to get this off my chest. I want TSR to be a nice place where people are reasonable and civilised. I don't think this will happen if people keep arguing about religion on here.

Let's all be reasonable here.

I am going to argue that more harm than good is done through debating religion/spirituality on TSR, and that we shouldn't do it.

TL;DR (too lazy, didn't read):



1) Debates just turn into arguments

I will have to admit, this is a personal observation and I do not have proof that this is always true. But I do think that everyone who has been involved in a religious debate can agree with me on this one, irrespective of which side you took.

What may start out as a civilised discussion very quickly turns into a cesspool of logical fallacies and ad hominem arguments (insults). People start to call each other idiots. People write before they think, instead of the other way round. What should be neutrality instead becomes hostility. What can you hope to achieve when this occurs?

2) Who's mind is being changed?

Epistemology is a fancy word for how and why people 'know' things. Different people have different epistemologies, meaning they accept something to be true depending on different criteria. Two people can hold the same opinion, but for different reasons (and they will have gotten that opinion through different means).

Some people decide that they believe in something through scientific evidence. This isn't necessarily always a good thing (it is not convenient, for example, to ask your mother for a peer-reviewed study if she tells you that bananas are good for you).

Whereas others may believe something because they were brought up with that belief, or heard it from an authority figure. Christian families tend to have Christian kids, atheist families tend to have atheist kids etc. This can also be with friends, the community etc.

Almost everyone has a mixture of the two (and there are more than just two), but may use different ones for different topics (e.g: spiritual beliefs and whether or not bananas are good for you). The problem arises when someone of one epistemology tries to debate with someone of another epistemology on the same topic. My mother is religious, but not because of scientific evidence (there isn't any) and she is okay with that. But what that means is, I have no hope of changing her mind into becoming an atheist because none of my arguments will matter to her.

Basically all people hold religious or other spiritual beliefs not because of scientific evidence. And some people are atheist (for example) solely because there is a lack of scientific evidence for religion (in which case non-scientific arguments will not appeal to them). So how on earth do you think you are going to change someone's mind with arguments that don't mean a grain of salt to them? (Remember, this is a question to all sides of the debate.)

Sidenote:
I would also like to mention that one particular argument keeps popping up from atheists which I find particularly ignorant of the scientific method:

"There is no irrefutable proof for the existence of God."

And a very similar sounding one from the theists:

"There is nothing that irrefutably disproves God."

This is not how science works. With mathematics we can write a proof that is correct and irrefutable. However, with the sciences, you can never have 100% proof that something is true. So then how does science work? Well luckily you can prove that something is false. This is called falsifiability and is a fundamental part of science. What this means is that you accept the 'best' theory available to you i.e. whichever one hasn't been proven false.

Say there are two opposing hypotheses:
- "Copper can conduct electricity"
- "Copper cannot conduct electricity"

A test is done. In the test, a battery, some wire and a light bulb are all hooked up to a lump of copper. When the battery is put in, the bulb turns on. Lets assume for argument's sake that the only way the bulb could have turned on was if that lump of copper could conduct electricity (and that the lump was indeed made of copper).

We consider the first statement to be true, not because we proved it true, but we proved the second to be false and the only other theory was the first. Of course, this is a simplified view of what science and the scientific method really are in reality, but it is sufficient nonetheless for the argument I am making.

All scientific knowledge is falsifiable. If evidence came along that truly proved that the hypothesis "copper can conduct electricity" was false in at least one scenario, then the hypothesis would be abandoned, or at least revised. So the only way the theory "God exists" could be undermined was if evidence came along that proved it false. Which is impossible (I can explain why, but this is already getting quite long). So because that theory is not falsifiable, it cannot be science.

So atheists, stop saying that theists need to "prove" God's existence, and theists: stop saying that atheists need to "disprove" God's existence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for the wall of text. I'm bored, and I wanted to get this off my chest. I want TSR to be a nice place where people are reasonable and civilised. I don't think this will happen if people keep arguing about religion on here.

Not gonna happen. TSR's been here a long time and it's part of the character of the place that:


In other words, if you don't want to read threads about religion, don't open them. Either way, chill your tits.

Well, even if I can't get everyone to stop, the best I can hope for is that I introduced a new way of thinking for someone, without being toxic.

And don't worry, my tits are pretty chilled.

If you don't like debates then don't engage in them. Other people have a right to discuss concepts and opinions with one another.

Your belief in your suggestion + the fact that it reduces freedom of speech/sharing of views + the restrictive nature of your suggestion +/- being sensibly logical = so not going to transpire before 2099 at least.

PS: Only limited it until 2099 to not disappoint you too much - no worries, we can review it then.

Of course, but at least take my points into consideration if you do take part and engage in those sorts of debate.