Debate religion/God with me

[Smitty]

I think metaphysics has had its day - and is gradually being replaced my empirical science. The same will eventually happen to philosophy. One day we will have little use for it. It's on its way to extinction IMO.

Interesting. I can see why you would think that of a belief in the supernatural (although incidentally, I don't think that is in as great a state of decline as we're led to believe - the difference being between a decline in organized religion and an actual decline in theism), but philosophy? I think mankind will always be curious about his existence and whether there is something greater. Empirical science can't answer everything, and this kind of theorizing goes with being an intelligent, self-aware being in my opinion.

[Loki]

Interesting. I can see why you would think that of a belief in the supernatural (although incidentally, I don't think that is in as great a state of decline as we're led to believe - the difference being between a decline in organized religion and an actual decline in theism), but philosophy? I think mankind will always be curious about his existence and whether there is something greater. Empirical science can't answer everything, and this kind of theorizing goes with being an intelligent, self-aware being in my opinion.

I think as more and more questions that plagued humans for thousands of years are being answered - either through scientific discoveries or genetics, the less use there will be for philosophy. But you have a good point there.

[Hong Key]

Putin does NOT approve of this thread.









Nor does his BFF



Nor do these lovely ladies.

[Smitty]

I think as more and more questions that plagued humans for thousands of years are being answered - either through scientific discoveries or genetics, the less use there will be for philosophy. But you have a good point there.

Well, a case could be made for the uselessness of philosophy in any age or place.

[Desaix DeBurgh]

Interesting. I can see why you would think that of a belief in the supernatural (although incidentally, I don't think that is in as great a state of decline as we're led to believe - the difference being between a decline in organized religion and an actual decline in theism), but philosophy? I think mankind will always be curious about his existence and whether there is something greater. Empirical science can't answer everything, and this kind of theorizing goes with being an intelligent, self-aware being in my opinion.

Chapter I ~ The Mystery of Being ~ actually begins on this theme:-


We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time.

Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different from the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago.

...

6.53 The correct method in philosophy would really be the following: to say nothing except what can be said, i.e., propositions of natural science - i.e., something that has nothing to do with philosophy - and then, whenever someone else wanted to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had failed to give a meaning to certain signs in his propositions.

http://sqapo.com/wittgenstein.htm

[XenophobicPrussian]

Loki, what debate is there?

There isn't any, there's just stupid people and not stupid people. Debating against them is like debating people who believe the earth isn't flat.

Although, I do like watching Richard Dawkins waste his time debating some American Religious nuts and Muslims.

[Loki]

Loki, what debate is there?

Well, the fact that billions of people on earth are still religious, means that there is still much room for interesting debate. Everyone is looking for answers, really. We humans are curious primates.

[XenophobicPrussian]

Well, the fact that billions of people on earth are still religious, means that there is still much room for interesting debate. Everyone is looking for answers, really. We humans are curious primates.

Your first sentence assumes all humans are equal or equally smart. Less than 1 billion of those people are relevant in terms of critical thinking and intelligent conversation.

It's pretty simple, smart people aren't Religious, dumb people are, there's nothing else to it. The argument and statements of proof is already won.

It's pretty much irrelevant now in Europe, only America and some southern/eastern Euro countries are really holding the West back in terms of Religion. It's pretty irrelevant in north-east Asia too. It probably would've been gone eventually but with the influx of immigrants, Europe will be a Religious place again.

[Anthony PV]

Well, the fact that billions of people on earth are still religious, means that there is still much room for interesting debate.

Yep, here's one → A family of Klansmen (Daniel Carver, his wife and his son Daniel Carver Jr.) versus a homosexual (well, bisexual) Jew (Mark Harris) on Howard Stern. Enjoy!

[Loki]

Your first sentence assumes all humans are equal or equally smart.

No, not really.

It's pretty simple, smart people aren't Religious, dumb people are, there's nothing else to it. The argument and statements of proof is already won.

It's not as simple as that. Do not discount the influence of being indoctrinated from youth by your parents/community. I myself was religious for a long time, but eventually I broke away from that, thanks to my critical thinking skills/habits. And it would have been more difficult if I was still in South Africa -- where atheists are basically shunned by society in general.

I agree with you, though, that the most intelligent people would [eventually] be or become non-theists. However it does not help the debate when you call religious people stupid. It would just cause them to erect an emotional barrier, and they would stop listening to your arguments.