What ever happened to CONSTRUCTIVE debates?

---

I know its not the reason for this forum and it doesn't really belong anywhere here, but in a community forum, which is basically a "miscellaneous forum", we can talk about pretty much anything as long as it doesn't offend excessively.Yes, I'm talking about religious/scientific debates. Whenever I bring this up people accuse me of trying to cause trouble, trying to attack others. But please believe me when I say I'm not, I am a 100% advocate of reason and truth. For a lot of people there are 2 kinds of truth, one that everyone agrees on and a personal truth that is unique to them. I so, ridiculously much, strongly disagree with the idea of a personal truth, it is simply an attempt to validate an opinion. There is only truth and opinion.I do have a problem with religion and many religious beliefs. All religions claim to advocate love as their one true core, but it is so evident that they don't. Religion creates fear, fear of other religions, fear of contradiction to their own religion. Even Christianity promotes fear of parts of its own dogma, ie. Hell.Religion prevents the search for REAL truth, they block scientific study that goes against THEIR religious moral beliefs (stem-cell research). They try to discredit and destroy REAL scientific theories that go against their beliefs (evolution by natural selection). And evolution is a big one, we've talked about here a few times and NOBODY has been able to refute it. They have pointed out accounts where scientists have faked results for their own reasons, but there are countless others that are NOT fake and COMPLETELY agree and support evolution.Some people claim that they believe in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution, this is rather silly because in science there is no discussion under these two headings. Macro-evolution is micro-evolution over a wider time scale. Its that simple.Other people say that they believe in evolution but they don't believe that it applies to humans. The claim is "backed up" by the claim that there are no transitional fossils found or that the line is incomplete. This is wrong. Although we do not have a fossil of every generation with every unique mutation, we have a large fossil record that stretches back through over 5 million years of Hominid evolution that is supported by genetic research, migration patterns and other data. Not only do we share up to 98.5% of our DNA with modern apes, we share unique genetic markers that pretty much make it a fact that we share a common ancestor.People argue that evolution is only a theory and it is not proven. The word "Proof" is a mathematical term and cannot be applied to evolution. People confuse the term "theory" with a "hypothesis". A hypothesis is more or less a guess, an idea. It has yet to be tested. A theory, on the other hand, was once a hypothesis, was then tested using the hypothesis to make a prediction. If the results match the prediction then the results are sent to scientific peers who tear it apart to try to find a mistake. If none is found then it is published in a scientific journal where others can read it and test it themselves to try to repeat the results and to try to explain them, removing any chance that the results are caused by another source that is either unknown or just unconsidered. When all of this is done, THEN you have a theory. Evolution has undergone the same rigorous scrutiny as the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity, but unlike the others, evolution is attacked simply because it goes against religious beliefs.People probably won't reply to this thread, or if they do it'll be to tell me to shut up. But if anyone is interested then please try to learn about: The Theory of Evolution: The theory of non-random selection of random mutations.For more info, there are several very educated people on YouTube that can help you out and who actually provide the information to support what they say.http://www.youtube.com/user/Thunderf00thttp://www.youtube.com/user/AronRahttp://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007http://www.youtube.com/user/ExtantDodohttp://www.youtube.com/user/RabidApeNow to watch this thread sink...

The problem bobbo, is that most people are not capable of having an honest debate, they are right, your not gonna change thier mind and thats that. Noone wants to learn new shit or see the other side of what they think to be true. when it gets to god especially, I am 100% positive there is none, I have far to much evidence that none exists, and all they have is a book written by man thats been translated a million times and I put it on the same level as the brothers grimm fairy tales.Despite the dinosaurs, the fucking fact we have been to space and noone saw heaven but they supposedly built the tower of babbilon and god struck it down, despite that its all bullshit, they say tis truy! its the word of god! its true and youll burn in hell.fuck em! Atleast if Im wrong i like it warm. Billy Joel once wrote that its better to laugh with teh sinners than cry with the saints, the sinners are much more fun. THats how i view it as well.Noone can ever convince me short of god popping down for fucking tea even then he has to prove to me he is god. and the other sided will never believe till they die and find no afterlife, and then its too late. Because it cant be proved or disproved, its just a fucking argument and an emotional one at that. If we all had had those debates of the past in a stadium you cold of sold tickets to the blood letting.and science always comes back to well god said so! so even science is about fucking god. its all a big fucking circle.

Religious debates are difficult because they delv into a person's core beleifs. When they are brought into question, many react emotioally before intellectually. Some religions like Judaism, encourage debate and reflextion on the actuall meanings of the Tora. While many many others rather strongly discourage it.

I had an interesting discussion with a friend of mine last week. She is very spiritual, into mystsism, sprits and ghosts, etc. She said that science is limmiting because it defines things and that's the end of the story. I explaind that it's quite the oposite. Science answers and question that leads to another. Quantum theories are a perfect example... "what's inside this? ok, what's inside that, ok, now what's inside that?" and so on.
Religion on the other hand can be quite limmiting... "god made it, end of story"

This discussion did not lead to a change in her beleifs but it did slightly alter her view on science. This was a result we were both happy with.

Are to trying to be Steve?I advocated banning any religeous debate here a while back but was voted down.. There's no purpose for it here at this site. Even though there is a "community" forum, it was placed here becasue random stuff was being posted in the other forums. I don't see how ANYTHING constructive can be done by telling one party that their belief is nonsense becasue it can't be proven. Every 'debate" in the past has had the same result.

Originally Posted By: Grvtykllrand science always comes back to well god said so! so even science is about fucking god. its all a big fucking circle. Woah there!! Not a single TRUE scientist would use God as an answer. Science is the study of the natural world, science has nothing to do with the existence of gods.

Most people feel offended because they take things personally when they are not meant that way.

Well then screw religion, why not scientific debates? Evolution is a scientific theory, it has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Can we discuss that?And Steve was great, he annoyed people but at least he was interesting and ya could have a half decent conversation with him!

bobbo it does it always returns to god
Now I dont think a scientist would use god, but people arguing against science use god. its still gets tossed back into teh mix.
evolutions not true! god made us in his image!
the bible doesnt mention dinosaurs but we have proof! those are things put there by the devil to mislead you and condemn you to hell!
There are documented cases of gay animals! Animals dont matter! They cant think or reason! God said gays are an abomination and youll burn in hell! Its a choice!
Everything leads back to god.
No matter what proof you have, no matter what evidence suggests something is science its always turned back to god.

I also agree about steve,m he was great, good ideas, always researched shit before giving an answer and his shit was always right, he kne a hell of a lot of shit, he was smart and what he bitched the most about was people not citing sources, and people laying out that it was god who said this or that and thats why its right.I for one think the boards lost a great resource when steve was given the boot.

>>>"I for one think the boards lost a great resource when steve was given the boot."

Couldn't agree more.

While I can agree with the fact that there shouldn't be anything wrong with religious debates, key word is shouldn't, people just get too emotional and do not want to question their beliefs. A sort of willfull ignorance you could say. However, don't put blanket claims over all religions like saying they don't advocate love or that they go against Science always and creates fear. I can use an example called Stoicism. It doesn't have any texts that are really defined as truth, but it uses self-questioning to find what appears to be true to someone. Not because they are told it by a religious text, but because they question things they've been told and use what evidence they experience themselves.

Iv put alot of shit up on these boards and more than once steve disagreed with me but he always provided proof that I was wrong, it wasnt just to argue or take a different side.He played devils advocate a few times, but he alwasy todl you he was, I agree ,but cant you see how if you thought....

Which is why I tend to see everything as being possible. There's a term, I forget its name, that basically deals with the idea that what you see (in general) is true to life. I tend to follow this, and because of this, I tend to favor things that seem most probable (like a scientist, because science is merely figuring out what is most probable) based on testimony that I believe to be facts that have real-world data to back them up.Although, unfortunately, these forums aren't the best place for constructive debates merely because the number of people that participate often enough in the forums, which is why I usually go to a different forum for that type of thing.

Occams Razor"All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."magic beings from the sky doesn't strike me as a simple solution though

Steve, like me, found absolute stements objectionable. That is what made him a good debator. He was able to pick up a position, contrary to his personal beleifs, then argue it intellegently.

Steve is not like that Rad.Bob, are you a scientologist now?

Originally Posted By: RadecklNo, he wasn't always right.If you said A, he said B; if you said B, he said A.If he said A and you said A, he changed it to B.He just wanted to argue no matter what.You can't always be right when you do that.You have to take a position and stick with it.The exception was when the information changed your mind.But, when you just took the opposite side, you'd have to be wrong sometime. I actually agree with you Rad. Though on the other side, he is a very smart man and had tons of information and with that be brought a lot of good sources to the site... he just had little people skills, nor was he tolerate of other peoples beliefs.

lish... I think before you accuse bob of losing his mind you shoudl click that link in his sig.

I tried, but it won't work for me. Which is why I asked. What am I missing?

Originally Posted By: DxLISHxISx_43I tried, but it won't work for me. Which is why I asked. What am I missing? What I got out of skimming it briefly, it's a site against Scientology.