Should Theists Be Blocked From Religion Debates? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally by activity where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.


Communities

DebateIsland Referral Program: Get a Free Month of DebateIsland Diamond Premium Membership ($4.99 Value) Per Each New User That You Refer!

Should Theists Be Blocked From Religion Debates?

Debate Information

After all, those who believe in God do not have adequate reason nor logic to properly argue anyway. Atheists, on the other hand are able to objectively and truthfully give valid arguments relating to religion. My feeling is that theists should be allowed into religious debates in order that those contemplating being religious can get a good idea of what actually goes through a deluded mind.
«134



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
22%
Margin

Details +



Arguments



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • ThorThor 193 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Hello, how is your OCD?
    Peace 
  • xlJ_dolphin_473xlJ_dolphin_473 1385 Pts   -   edited March 21
    @Swolliw

    Should Theists Be Blocked From Religion Debates?

    Of course not. What is a debate on religion without religious people? No proper debate could take place without people on both sides. You and I understand that theists are very much erroneous in their assumptions, but if there are no people to debate with, there is no fun in debates about religion.
    LiamThePersonAlofRIZeusAres42TreeManHappy_Killbot
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    No they shouldn’t I would actively encourage them to debate and exchange ideas 
    SkepticalOneAlofRIxlJ_dolphin_473TreeManZeusAres42
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    Of course not. What is a debate on religion without religious people?

    A fair and informed debate is the answer.
    A debate on religion is not necessarily a debate as to "Does God Exist?" There are many issues that can be debated. 
    If there were say, a debate on mental health, we would have psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and carers all giving their points of view. Is a mental patient able to give a valid or worthwhile argument? I doubt it. In fact their argument is likely to be completely off the planet. Similarly, in a religious debate, a believer in God is hardly going to contribute anything valid, truthful or helpful to the discussion. Atheists, on the other hand would be able to contribute an objective, truthful and more balanced view.
    TreeMan
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    No they shouldn’t I would actively encourage them to debate and exchange ideas 

    Even if their debating is illogical, lacking in reason and their ideas are delusional?
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Even if their debating is illogical, lacking in reason and their ideas are delusional?


    You get them types alright but they come in every shape and colour , what harm does debating do?
    ZeusAres42
  • ThorThor 193 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Is a mental patient able to give a valid or worthwhile argument?...

    Lol debate me, I would show you who is mental patient,



    I can understand it is not curable, but you can work upon it atleast. ;)
    LiamThePersonZeusAres42
    Peace 
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    No, but people who try to mislead others about their expertise in a particular subject should be banned sitewide. Happy Killbot springs to mind.
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 791 Pts   -   edited March 21
    This would be like talking about politics and saying we should ban democrats or Republicans from speaking.  I'm not sure it could even be considered a debate at that point.
    xlJ_dolphin_473LiamThePersonZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    This would be like talking about politics and saying we should ban democrats or Republicans from speaking. 

    I agree that we should ban Republicans from speaking. Just look at the result of the last two impeachment votes. In the first of these, John Bolton was actively prevented from giving testimony because the Republicans knew Trump was guilty and that Bolton's testimony would prove it. 

    If one group of fascists can't have a platform (i.e. neo-Nazis) then other groups of fascists shouldn't have one either. If someone wants to replace the modern Republican party with a vanguard party full of people who are actually conservatives rather than fascists then I'm all for it.

    CYDdharta
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 572 Pts   -  
    It's a problem if one side of the debate believes themself superior to the other side. It's an even bigger problem if both sides do. I've seen this happen all too much in religious debates. 
    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    It's a problem if one side of the debate believes themself superior to the other side. It's an even bigger problem if both sides do. I've seen this happen all too much in religious debates. 
    I take your point, but at the same time you should not assume that when there are two "sides" to a debate that both of them hold equal weight. It is a natural human tendency to do this, and it has harmed culture considerably. For example, it has enabled capitalists in the United States to drag the political centre as far right as possible, so that all debates now take place between the right and the far right, while the actual left haven't been seen since the days of McCarthy.

    Science does not need God to explain the universe, so as far as I am concerned atheism is superior to the belief that we were all magicked into existence by a grand bearded wizard with omnipotent power.
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 572 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature I think I may not have phrased that very well. I agree with you that both sides don't usually hold equal weight, but the time when it becomes problematic is when one side or both sides has so much faith in their own idea that they pooh-pooh all their opponents' arguments and suggest blocking the other side from debates. 
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature 

    I think I may not have phrased that very well. I agree with you that both sides don't usually hold equal weight, but the time when it becomes problematic is when one side or both sides has so much faith in their own idea that they pooh-pooh all their opponents' arguments and suggest blocking the other side from debates

    Can't argue with that. Good job.

    LiamThePerson
  • piloteerpiloteer 1274 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    Religious people generally know more about religion than atheists, so it would be like arguing doctors should be blocked from medical debates.
  • AlofRIAlofRI 1361 Pts   -  
    If everyone in a religious debate was religious, and there was a TRUE "word of God", there would be nothing to debate. There is no "word of God" that ISN'T debatable, there isn't even a single "god" that isn't debatable. The only thing that is going to stop theists from debating is an undeniable entrance of an undeniable god! Ain't gonna happen! We've waited for 2000 years, debated for at least that long. We should give it up and get down to the business of science and do what we can to improve our OWN lives and planet. There is NO help, forthcoming. WE have to do it ourselves. No debate.
    ZeusAres42
  • mickygmickyg 335 Pts   -  
    NO POSTING AND RUNNING

    IF YOU DON'T RESPOND YOU SHOULD BE BANNED


    LiamThePersonZeusAres42
  • mickygmickyg 335 Pts   -  
    NO POSTING AND RUNNING

    IF YOU DON'T RESPOND YOU SHOULD BE BANNED


  • mickygmickyg 335 Pts   -  
    NO POSTING AND RUNNING

    IF YOU DON'T RESPOND YOU SHOULD BE BANNED


  • rosendsrosends 129 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw

    There is little room for anything like debate when it comes to the rift between theism and atheism. The shared groundwork and standards are lacking. There is opportunity for conversation and reaching understandings about differing systems, but debate is fruitless.
  • Starlord616Starlord616 358 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @xlJ_dolphin_473
    Of course not. What is a debate on religion without religious people?

    A fair and informed debate is the answer.

    how can it be considered informed or fair if we are ignoring a large amount of peoples opinion, and also people who are often very well read in this particular area?
    LiamThePersonZeusAres42
  • mickygmickyg 335 Pts   -  
    THEISTS IGNORE FACTS
    IF THEY HAD FACTS THEY WOULD USE THEM...@Starlord616
  • anarchist100anarchist100 447 Pts   -  
    @Swolliw
    So you don't want the other side to be allowed to participate in a debate?
    ZeusAres42TreeMan
  • anarchist100anarchist100 447 Pts   -   edited March 22
    @Nomenclature

    I agree that we should ban Republicans from speaking.

    So I suppose you support the repeal of the first amendment?
  • Starlord616Starlord616 358 Pts   -  
    mickyg said:
    THEISTS IGNORE FACTS
    IF THEY HAD FACTS THEY WOULD USE THEM...@Starlord616
    atheists also can ignoe facts whats your point?
    ZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @piloteer

    Religious people generally know more about religion than atheists


    Interesting observation, my experience is different I was raised a Roman Catholic and educated by the Jesuits and have a firm grounding in theology and theological thought most Atheists I know are the same as after years of belief they examined slowly and carefully all arguments  against and found the “evidence “ for their god beliefs was faith based and  nothing else 

    Again also the religious on here are all as far as I’ve seen mostly American and their religious education is truly appalling , most ask for specific Bible verses after claiming they don’t exist and I haven’t seen one put up and defend any of the classic arguments for a god proving how poorly versed they are in their own religious beliefs 
    TreeMan
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    So you don't want the other side to be allowed to participate in a debate?

    It is not clear what you mean by the "other side". Nevertheless, if one were to completely ignore or fail to understand the OP and the fifth post yet still ask the question to which both concisely answer there would clearly be a case for one to not have the required intellect nor capability to participate in any debate.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @Dee
    You get them types alright but they come in every shape and colour , what harm does debating do?

    I don't think "harm" is an issue...it is more the capability and objectiveness shown by the debater and, given that a sincere believer of God would be profoundly deluded, we would not expect to get anything that comes near to being a rational, if not valid argument from that person.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers
    This would be like talking about politics and saying we should ban democrats or Republicans from speaking.  I'm not sure it could even be considered a debate at that point.

    I think you completely overlooked my point. We are talking here specifically about people who vehemently believe in God and are therefore profoundly deluded. Take another look at the OP and the fifth post and you will notice that your analogy is completely redundant. 


    ZeusAres42
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616
    how can it be considered informed or fair if we are ignoring a large amount of peoples opinion, and also people who are often very well read in this particular area?

    Because we would be excluding those who are "well read" in lunacy and delusional ideas. Tell me how it is fair for someone to participate in a debate who truly believes that the earth is 6000 years old?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616
    atheists also can ignoe facts whats your point?

    But it is theists who will habitually ignore facts and lie to the extent that what they think is true.
    Starlord616
  • MichaelElpersMichaelElpers 791 Pts   -   edited March 22
    @Swolliw. If your coming at this from an unbiased perspective (an outside observer) people who vehemently believe in God aren't anymore "deluded" than you, someone who vehemently disbelievers.  

    How much someone believes or disbelievers has no relevance to the argument at hand.  Trying to debate religion but removing one half of the argument isn't a debate.
    Your frustration obviously comes from the fact that those who believe won't accept what you believe as fact and can't back up religion with complete objective reasoning.
    I've always felt debates on God's existence are semi pointless because it is already acknowledged even from the religious side that we can't understand/comprehend what God has created.  The term faith also shows the religious do not have a 100% logical understanding of God or his creation.
    LiamThePersonZeusAres42
  • LiamThePersonLiamThePerson 572 Pts   -  
    @MichaelElpers I do agree there that even though there isn't really evidence for a deity, it's not bad to believe in one. I think that certain people can gain a lot from religion and that forcing nontheism on them isn't constructive or right. 
  • mickygmickyg 335 Pts   -  
    what fact has an atheist ignored about gods
    now don't run away this time
  • Starlord616Starlord616 358 Pts   -  
    mickyg said:
    what fact has an atheist ignored about gods
    now don't run away this time
    im saying that ignoring facts, lying and stretching the truth all behaviours shared between atheists and thesists. 
  • Starlord616Starlord616 358 Pts   -  
    Swolliw said:
    @Starlord616
    how can it be considered informed or fair if we are ignoring a large amount of peoples opinion, and also people who are often very well read in this particular area?

    Because we would be excluding those who are "well read" in lunacy and delusional ideas. Tell me how it is fair for someone to participate in a debate who truly believes that the earth is 6000 years old?
    how is it fair for someone to participate in a debate who truly believes that being an atheist makes him intellectually superior by default 
  • anarchist100anarchist100 447 Pts   -   edited March 22
    @Swolliw
    Sorry I got worked up and posted before reading it, I'll not not to do that again.
  • I can't see how you're going to broaden your mind or that of others of people with opposing views by blocking those people with opposing views.
    anarchist100LiamThePerson



  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @anarchist100
    Sorry I got worked up and posted before reading it, I'll not not to do that again.

    That's cool and that's what debate is all about. I'm guilty of shooting from the mouth nearly all time. Most times I manage to get it right....in my opinion.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @Starlord616
    how is it fair for someone to participate in a debate who truly believes that being an atheist makes him intellectually superior by default 

    The old "answer a question with a question" and "gaslighting" tricks rolled into one eh? Except that you omitted the question mark.
    You see, the big difference is that there is believing and there is believing. Anyone who resides north of the loony fringe and believes any thought that comes into his mind is a far cry from someone who forms beliefs based on evaluating informed information, wouldn't you say?
  • TreeManTreeMan 172 Pts   -  
    How do you have a religious debate without religious and non-religious people?Atheists can’t argue for theism, and vice versa. I cannot think of a single argument for the existence of god, for example, apart from the extremely flawed Kalamazoo cosmological argument @Swolliw
    ZeusAres42
  • piloteerpiloteer 1274 Pts   -  
    @Dee

    I'm not saying all atheists know less about religion than all theists, but in general, theists have a better understanding of their religion, and the feelings and faith associated with them. It may be true that the atheists you know are generally more well read in religion, but the OP does not hinge on your personal experiences. It's also kind of obvious that the OP was created just for the sake of anti-religious rhetoric and not for the sake of any serious policy. How do we even go about barring religious people from religious discussions anyway?     
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -  
    Wouldn't it be a much better idea to just ban religious debates?

    Debates about religion are simply pointless because the theists have an argument which can't be falsified and the atheists have an argument which can't be validated. 
    rosendsLiamThePerson
  • DeeDee 3865 Pts   -  
    @piloteer


    How do we even go about barring religious people from religious discussions anyway?   

    But I never suggested we should my opening statement was ......what harm does debating do?
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature
    Debates about religion are simply pointless because the theists have an argument which can't be falsified and the atheists have an argument which can't be validated. 

    Let's set the record straight, shall we?
    Theists have a belief which cannot be proven. Atheists are not required to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.

    There can be intelligent debate over religion. For example, a debate to determine whether it is religion that makes people deluded or whether it is deluded people who are attracted to religion.
    Similarly, we could have a debate as to whether people become anti-social and hateful because of religion or whether anti-social, hateful people are attracted to religion.
    Or, we could argue the impact that religion has in splitting-up families and abusing children.
    Then again, we could debate why religious followers are compulsive liars; whether they have that disposition in the first place and use religion as a shield or whether they have to lie out of necessity in order to protect the lies they hold as being true.
  • SwolliwSwolliw 786 Pts   -  
    @TreeMan
    How do you have a religious debate without religious and non-religious people?

    You can't. And that was nowhere near the premise of my argument in the OP. I suggest that you may wish to improve your education, read the OP again, carefully, then make an intelligent, informed reply.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 569 Pts   -   edited March 23
    Theists have a belief which cannot be proven. 

    Of course it can be proven. We can simply find God. It can't be disproven (i.e. falsified) because we don't have the means to eliminate from the enquiry all the places he could be hiding.

    Atheists are not required to disprove something that has never been proven in the first place.

    Atheists are required to prove their own belief that there is no God, not disprove theists' belief that there is.

    It seems that far from setting the "record straight", all you have actually done is illustrated that A) You have an irrational bias and B) You don't understand what you are talking about.

  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2004 Pts   -   edited March 23
    After all, those who believe in God do not have adequate reason nor logic to properly argue anyway. Atheists, on the other hand are able to objectively and truthfully give valid arguments relating to religion.

    Actually, some of those that do believe in God are able to and/or do make logically valid arguments in relation to religion and elsewhere, and they also have their reasons for believing in God. On the other hand, some Atheists are not able to and/or don't make logically valid arguments in relation to religion and elsewhere.


    My feeling is that theists should be allowed into religious debates in order that those contemplating being religious can get a good idea of what actually goes through a deluded mind.

    This sounds like the framing of all religious people as being irrational which I don't think is right. While a religious person may not believe in a God based on logic they definitely have their reasons and they are definitely not irrational as long they are conforming to those belief systems. An example of an irrational religious person would be where a Christan goes into a church, steals the mic from the preacher, and demands that everyone starts listening to a Britney Speare's track played out at high volume in the church every Sunday before the preacher starts the service. 


    I think it would do us good to remember that while in a casual sense the terms "reason", "logic", and "rationality" are often used synonymously to mean the same thing they are in fact very different things in a formal (linguistic) sense.


    Furthermore, the idea of banning religious people from religious debates because you believe them to be mad brings straight to my mind how a few hundred years ago Religious people viewed Atheists as also being mad. 







  • Keal192NXQ2Keal192NXQ2 240 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;Atheists are required to prove their own belief that there is no God, not disprove theists' belief that there is.

    Atheism is disbelief. No claim.

    The natural disposition is Atheism (lack of any belief of god(s) or deities). 

    So, disproving Theism will be in favor of Atheism. (unless the Theist switches to Deism)

    It depends on what kind of atheist that you're referring to, in this case, a hard Atheist, yes, the atheist needs to prove the non-existence of God.
  • piloteerpiloteer 1274 Pts   -   edited March 23
    Dee said:
    @piloteer


    How do we even go about barring religious people from religious discussions anyway?   

    But I never suggested we should my opening statement was ......what harm does debating do?
    Oh. Well then. It seems that we do agree that theists should of course be allowed to debate religious debates, although we agree for different reasons. I was just trying to point out that the OP of this debate was an obvious attempt to ruffle some feathers and not for the sake of any serious discussion, which I have yet to be convinced that this @Swowill character is actually interested or capable of any serious discussion. But my opinion is in no way the end all, be all, of a proper assessment of that person. I can tell you that this person has yet to respond to my  devastatingly valid comment.   
    LiamThePersonZeusAres42
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch