NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed that there tends to be a number of religious debates and I was just wondering whether people think there is
1) A clearly defined winner
2) A winner
3) No winner
4) Don't care, it's fun to listen to and talk about.

You don't need to say anything, or give a reason. Just vote please.

The only time there can be a 'winner' is if people come to agreement on and find real truth... I have yet to see that happen here. :( :confused:

The only time there can be a 'winner' is if people come to agreement on and find real truth... I have yet to see that happen here. :( :confused:

But a winner can be described as someone who has created an arguement that is on solid ground or more stable ground than the oppositions statements. Not necessarilly decided upon.

I've won everyone I've been involved in.

The only way to win is not to play the game. ;)

I win but my opponent never admits it.

There is a clearly defined winner and it's me cause I'm always right. Just because (just kidding)

But seriously, folks, I think it's based on who actually says the more intelligent things with intelligent backings. The people who say "because God said so," are full of shit, and the people who say "Can you prove me wrong? No, exactly" are also full of shit. You need to provide good reasoning as to what is fact and what isn't. For example, Moses crossing the Red Sea and then it collapsing in on the Pharoe's (sp?) army can be naturally explained, there could have been an earthquake far off shore, which, when a tsunami occurs, causes the water to recede. Natural things can also explain the ten plagues and a good bit of other stories of the Bible. I'm not saying I believe any of it, 'cause I don't believe in religion (I don't think "God" would give us free will if he wanted us to follow every word to a T. I mean I think things like murder are wrong but still) but I'm saying it's possible.

There is a clearly defined winner and it's me cause I'm always right. Just because (just kidding)

But seriously, folks, I think it's based on who actually says the more intelligent things with intelligent backings. The people who say "because God said so," are full of shit, and the people who say "Can you prove me wrong? No, exactly" are also full of shit. You need to provide good reasoning as to what is fact and what isn't. For example, Moses crossing the Red Sea and then it collapsing in on the Pharoe's (sp?) army can be naturally explained, there could have been an earthquake far off shore, which, when a tsunami occurs, causes the water to recede. Natural things can also explain the ten plagues and a good bit of other stories of the Bible. I'm not saying I believe any of it, 'cause I don't believe in religion (I don't think "God" would give us free will if he wanted us to follow every word to a T. I mean I think things like murder are wrong but still) but I'm saying it's possible.

It's possible yes but something's you can't prove wrong. Also you can't not believe in religion that's a belief, which can also be called a religion. He gave us free will so that way we have a choice to follow or not. True love is not something that is programed into someone. But hey you beleive what you want because in the end we will know the truth.

This is just to get more parties into this poll so please vote. If you want to explain your choice that's your choice. Thx.

The problem with religious debates is it is incredibly unlikely that either side will change their mind or accede a point, so nothing changes. People just get more stubborn and degenerate into personal attacks.

I've won everyone I've been involved in.

You have not...,you liar.

What an absurd question.

What an absurd question.

How is this an absurd question? What is so absurd about it? Is asking whether or not there is a God an absurd question? Is asking whether or not scientists are wrong about the creation of the Earth an absurd question? No, because it gives us something to use our minds for to search for to investigate.


Note: These question are entirely rhetorical.

It's fun to watch religious types yell at each other until a M0d locks the thread

The problem with religious debates is it is incredibly unlikely that either side will change their mind or accede a point, so nothing changes. People just get more stubborn and degenerate into personal attacks.

But its not who is debating but rather who is listening to the debate. If there is a bystandard who hears this and approaches the arguements logically then he might find a place. But otherwise ya, unlikely that either side will change it's mind, but not always to be degenerate into personal attacks, sometimes they simply find better ways of putting things or more information to back up their statements.

It's fun to watch religious types yell at each other until a M0d locks the thread

But you yourself are a "religious type". Not to bother you or anything but no one is not religious. Otherwise there would actually be a judge that would be non-partial.

This is just to get this thread some more ppl so please disregard this message.