Turn on thread page Beta

Can we all agree not to debate religion on TSR? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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):
    Spoiler:
    Show

    1) Debates on here never lead to a valuable conclusion and they just turn into flame wars. (Seriously guys, do you think you'd change your mind to someone who's acting like a total *******? No, right? So then stop being an ******* if you're trying to change someone else's mind.)

    2) Different people believe in things for different reasons. You can't convince someone of something when they have a fundamentally different way of accepting knowledge to you. And vice versa.

    Sidenote: You can't "prove" something is true in science, only that something is false. And because you can't prove God's existence to be false, it is (by definition) not science. So atheists and theists alike need to stop telling each other to prove/disprove the existence of God.



    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    That's not happening.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SGHD26716)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I disagree, everything should be debated because this is a forum and the free flowing of ideas is a good thing. If not to change people's opinions then to at least to spread knowedge to one another. Also no-one gets hurt, the mods are here for a reason and everything should be questioned and a reasoned debate should follow and if you want the topic of religion banned then do you also want political discussions to stop? Where will the line be drawn of what can or cannot be discussed. Spoiler, there is no line.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UDZ)
    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.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    F#ck I just mentioned prayer. Inb4 atheists ask me for proof it's working
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SGHD26716)
    I'll pray for you.

    Spoiler:
    Show

    F#ck I just mentioned prayer. Inb4 atheists ask me for proof it's working
    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.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UDZ)
    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.
    Cool bro.
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Political Ambassador
    Even the TL;DR is TL;DR for me
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shameful_burrito)
    Even the TL;DR is TL;DR for me
    TL;DR: TL;DR:

    stop pls
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by shameful_burrito)
    Even the TL;DR is TL;DR for me
    I bet your thread was the major 🔑 to triggering this thread.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SGHD26716)
    I bet your thread was the major 🔑 to triggering this thread.
    It was the "Theist burden to proof" one, whoever wrote that.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UDZ)
    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 😂😂
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SGHD26716)
    That thread was started because shameful_burrito told atheists to justify themselves.

    Chain reaction 😂😂
    Well, damn... This whole world is one big chain reaction.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Or you can just stay out of the debates. They tend to tedious as **** anyway.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by UDZ)
    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):
    Spoiler:
    Show


    1) Debates on here never lead to a valuable conclusion and they just turn into flame wars. (Seriously guys, do you think you'd change your mind to someone who's acting like a total *******? No, right? So then stop being an ******* if you're trying to change someone else's mind.)

    2) Different people believe in things for different reasons. You can't convince someone of something when they have a fundamentally different way of accepting knowledge to you. And vice versa.

    Sidenote: You can't "prove" something is true in science, only that something is false. And because you can't prove God's existence to be false, it is (by definition) not science. So atheists and theists alike need to stop telling each other to prove/disprove the existence of God.




    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:
    • Muslims are vastly overrepresented
    • Adherents to all religions talk openly
    • Atheists are practically without fail caustic and vitriolic toward religious folk
    • KEYBOARD WARRIORS BE A-HAMMERIN'

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

    8
    ReputationRep:
    If you don't like debates then don't engage in them. You don't need to stifle the right of others to discuss concepts and opinions.
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by UDZ)
    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):
    Spoiler:
    Show


    1) Debates on here never lead to a valuable conclusion and they just turn into flame wars. (Seriously guys, do you think you'd change your mind to someone who's acting like a total *******? No, right? So then stop being an ******* if you're trying to change someone else's mind.)

    2) Different people believe in things for different reasons. You can't convince someone of something when they have a fundamentally different way of accepting knowledge to you. And vice versa.

    Sidenote: You can't "prove" something is true in science, only that something is false. And because you can't prove God's existence to be false, it is (by definition) not science. So atheists and theists alike need to stop telling each other to prove/disprove the existence of God.




    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.

    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tootles)
    Not gonna happen. TSR's been here a long time and it's part of the character of the place that:
    • Muslims are vastly overrepresented
    • Adherents to all religions talk openly
    • Atheists are practically without fail caustic and vitriolic toward religious folk
    • KEYBOARD WARRIORS BE A-HAMMERIN'


    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.
    Offline

    20
    (Original post by UDZ)
    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.
    Still not gonna happen, to be honest. Nothing you've said is anything new really.

    I once tried taking this matter up with the TSR admins once, suggested that religious discussion should be strictly restricted to the religion subforums, and a "no cross/no crown" policy enforced across the rest of the site (within reason). Got shot down immediately.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wanderlust96)
    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.
    Of course, but at least take my points into consideration if you do take part and engage in those sorts of debate.

    (Original post by JamesH2017)
    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.
    I'm not too sure what you're getting at, but I like the maths.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 10, 2017
The home of Results and Clearing

2,777

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.