Religious Believers Start So Many Debates About Religion Because They...

» Home » Society

Religious Believers Start So Many Debates About Religion Because They Have Doubts About Their Faith

Faith should be an assured thing. It should radiate serenely through every aspect of a person's life, including verbal exchanges they have with others. This isn't what you see in the believers on this site, however. They are truculent and defensive about their beliefs, probably because they either consciously or subconsciously realise that those beliefs are absurd. As they continually propagate debates on the same topics, they resemble serial killers who keep killing because they want to be caught. They are looking for an excuse to stop believing and they come here to find it.

Hidell

18 May 2008 17:07

(What's this?)

Add to Firefox

RSS

Not all of them, but a lot do.

ur_wrong

28 Jun 2008 00:00

Add a Comment

I would agree with this. There does seem to be so much insecurity in those that are hell bent on proving an existence. I also feel the same about atheists who need to assert themselves as well. It seems indicative of where they are in their faith. This is particularly true of those who are relentless in putting forth these debates, one after another. Those who respond i feel less so, but those who are creating the debates are probably wondering some where beyond their denial. There is nothing wrong with such questions, as it is a sign of an open mind and a willingness to listen to other points of view. However, the level of defensiveness is quite telling.

innomen

20 May 2008 19:50

2 Comments

''However, the level of defensiveness is quite telling."
that could either be really... nice or not. Which one?

XieXie

17 Jun 2008 22:38

Comment

I agree faith and religion are supposed to shaoe your beliefs so how do you come up with all these debates and don't know what you believe in you say well yes and no or maybe and perhaps. Some debates do have a little grey area but most are cut and dry and i hate it how people try to straddle the fence don't u know in real life that hurts your genitals so u wouldn't just go in the back yard hop on the fence and stay there now would you. And if u think you know god exists good for you and if u think u know he doesn't good for you too. I believe in him and no one can tell me otherwise and that's the kind of faith i wish more people would have in any religion u choose but stick to it. I mean most Americans condemned bush and kerry for being "wishy-washy" but you guys do it everyday whats the difference?

ambercol

19 May 2008 15:25

Add a Comment

Of course they do. The religion should stand upon its own merit without lip service.

moreno

18 May 2008 17:22

Add a Comment

This is true charlee and mark are the top contenders for this sort if thing

Pure

18 May 2008 17:17

3 Comments

Actually I'm firm about Christianity and charlee seems to be firm too.

Mark

18 May 2008 20:32

Comment

No, if I say something is so, I only do so because I know it to be a fact of truth.
I believe everything I believe for a good reason: Ask my why, and I will tell you the reasons I know there is a God.
My faith is without Insecurities, as it not based upon other's thoughts or opinions, but upon my own journey of search for the Truth.
I was a hardcore-Atheist before I came to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I found God in a science book, not in church.

Scorpion

16 Sep 2008 03:13

Add a Comment

Most believers start debates because that's what's on their mind. I enjoy talking and debating about religion.

As for the defensiveness, could it be comments like yours that cause us to be defensive. In your summary you called our beliefs "absurd" and related us to "serial killers." Those are harsh words. Harsh words bring out harsh behaviours, even in the religious. And any honest person will admit they are not perfect. Never will be. Religious people still have the same emotions as non-religious people. We get angry, hurt, sad, and sometimes that comes out. Just like it does in non-religious people.

As for your last sentence, "reason to stop believing", I cant speak for everyone but that's not why I am here. I have been on both sides of the fence. Religious and non-religious. Now that i know Jesus, I never want to go back to not believing.

created

16 Sep 2008 02:53

3 Comments

Enjoy your blue pill.

Hidell

16 Sep 2008 03:11

Comment

I like music...I start a lot of debates about music. I like sports....I start a lot of debates about sports. Not interested in what the third layer of soil is at any certain location ...ain't gonna start a debate about it.

If I was gonna start a debate I would try not to use words that I don't the meaning of. There word faith comes from the bible. There is a definition of faith in the bible. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Now a debate about what that means sounds kinda fun.

justsumguy

23 Jul 2008 02:44

Add a Comment

Perhaps they want to "show" that they know everything just like other debaters.

Bacchus

20 May 2008 05:45

Add a Comment

I'm not insecure. I don't believe God exists, I KNOW God exists.

Mark

18 May 2008 21:57

2 Comments

its impossible to KNOW god exists. first, you cant KNOW that something exists when it doesn't, you can only think it does. second, there proof he doesn't exist(a lot of it) third, even if god did exist, you keed the proof to KNOW he does. for example: say 2,000 years ago someone said "the earth is round", even know he was right, he didnt KNOW it was round. you need proof of something to KNOW.

iLoveJesus

04 Sep 2008 05:20

Comment

From what I've seen on this site, most of the Religious question debates are started by the Atheist and evolutionist. And also the most offensive remarks come from them also especially -9. But you are right, there is no reason for the religious people on this site to get upset, the whol God /no GOD debate has been going on for thousands of years and has never been proven or dis-proven, neither has evolution or it would seise to be a theory and become a fact.

stever

18 May 2008 17:18

11 Comments

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution has been proven over and over again through observation and experimentation both in the lab and in the field through the fossil record. Do you know what it means for something to be a scientific theory?

Andromeda

18 May 2008 17:35

Comment

Thanks, I'll lookup the record of the cetaceans. About the fossil record of horses, I've only seen little ones and big ones nothing leading, one to another, just size change can be hybriding on necessarily evolution ( to me evolution is changing from sea creature to something walking on land like a lizard, changing out just size but design) If you use the mud skipper in florida thing , it's a fish that's smart and talented but still a fish(if you see one come up with legs, I'd be real interested in seeing it, that may be evolution then), chimp using a stick as a tool is smart and talented but not a human.     About the whale, he is still a mammal not a fish, but I will admit a unique one,   That's exactly what I meant when I said if things came from evolution there would be all kind of that wild and weird variety just like that, see they wouldn't all (99.9999%) turn outlike I said in my answer above you. Proconcils, homidids, neanderthal,humans there all simular like a deer,elk,antelope,ibex,moose are but not the same species. none can mate or ever could mate and cross genes, you could splice them....but that takes intelligent design.

Comment

This takes me back to my early college years. There are fossils leading all the way from the small horse ancestor Hyracotherium, that could not grow big because it was confined to a forest, all the way up to the present day Przewalski's Horse, which is the foundation breed for all the domesticated horses we have today. Merychippus is a transitional species between the early ancestors of horse and todays modern day Przewalski's. It was smaller than the modern day Przewalski but larger than its predecessors. It was 48 inches tall at the withers, and the Hyracotherium was only 9 inches tall. As the forest disappeared and were replaced by grassland, the space and diet grew and so did the animal.When an animal is confined to a small area with limited food the animal will not grow very large. You can also see this in the human species, Homo floresiensis is an interesting find on the small Indonesian island of Flores. It might be worth looking up as well.

As far as the Evolution of Humans, I'm not to steeped in that area of study, its only just now something I've begun to study. However, there is more than enough info on the web, including Wikipedia that gives a lot of info on human evolution and our ancestors. I can't give you all the answers about evolution because its far to complex a subject to put into words. Its something you have to study yourself to understand. I've got many years of studying Evolutionary Biology under my belt and I'm still learning something new all the time. My teachers gave me the tools and foundations to study it I just had to apply myself to learning about it.

I never said a chimp was a human. A chimp is a close relative to our species, that is something that you can't deny. When I first started working with chimps three years ago, I was blown away by how much like us they are. How intelligent they are, how much expression they have, and the emotion they show. They may not seem like human to an outside observer, but they are closer to us then any other animal on this planet. Two weeks into working with these animals I realized something. All I said to myself was, "What is wrong with those creationist." Humans have an evolutionary past that is just as complex and as long as every other organism on this planet. We are animals. We are just as much a part of nature as a bumble bee is. We just have a much larger impact on our environment and the other organisms in it. Unfortunately we have a mostly negative impact.

Evolution between an organism that swims and is tied to water to something that lays dry eggs on land like a reptile takes along time. Humans can't comprehend a million years, we can barely comprehend a thousand years. The bottom line is evolution takes time.

Comment

I appreciate your putting so much time into this, maybe we don't have the same idea of what evolution is....The info about the horses, I understand animals growing or staying small in there environment, anyone who has ever owned a gold fish know that and doesn't have to go to school at all. But recently breeders have bred horses back down to about 20 inches at the shoulder and their being used like seeing eye dogs. That's not evolution, its breeding nad it's also food quality and supply. To me the idea of evolution in one critter (ie a fish changing, growing legs and becoming a lizard) that's evolution or at least what you call creationist are arguing about. You can say were cousins to what ever you want, but we are a unique species.  I'm sure your work with monkeys is extremely interesting, and I am the kind of guy that would be interested in that too. But I wouldn't come to an all encompassing conclusion just because another species is intelligent. I'm quite sure ALL species are a lot more intelligent than we give them credit for.

Comment

Down sizing the horse is a good example of selective breeding, this is even more obvious in the many breeds of dogs we have. The animals have the same anatomy, they only change in appearance, size, and color. The evolution of the horse is not selective breeding because its anatomy has changed over time. Especially in the hooves, and the arrangement of the bones in the legs. Selective breeding is done by humans to get the best traits to come out in a particular animal, dogs and horses are both examples of selective breeding. Evolution is driven by natural selection, only the fittest will pass on thier genes thus keeping the species strong. Every thing in that animals environment determines how it will evolve and what path it will take to survive. If that means venturing out onto land and adapting to a new environment then thats what that animal is going to do, its that or die out. In time the animal will evolve to suit its new environment. This is why so many species are going extinct at an alarming rate today, a lot of animals can't adapt to the changing environment that humans have caused.

The evolution of the horse is a simple way of describing and explaining evolution, evolution of how tetrapods came to land is a bit more complicated. That is an animal that goes from being completely depended on the water like a fish, to an animal that is partly tied to the water like an amphibian, to something that lays hard-shelled eggs and survives without the need to be near water, reptile. This chain of three diffrent vertebrates is interesting to evolutionary biologist and it all begins with the fish and ends with the reptile. Well you also have present day birds and the mammals but thats another evolutionary story all together. The amphibian is wedged in between the fish and the reptile, to put it simply. Its neither here nor there, it lays its eggs in water but spends most of its life on land.

Ever heard of the coelacanths, it belongs to a class of fish known as Sarcopterygii. Sarcopterygii is traditionally the class of lobe-finned fishes, consisting of lungfish and coelacanths. These are bony fish with paired rounded fins. These fins evolved into legs of the first tetrapod land vertebrates, which are amphibians.

There have been many fossil species found that have limbs that date back to the Devonian, all of which have both fish and amphibian features. Panderichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Hynerpeton, Ichthyostega, just to name a few. Which one is the first to survive out of water is still being debated since all have similar features. The mudskipper is an example of what a intermediate between a fish and amphibian whould look like. If you look closely at one they do have front legs that resembles an amphibians front legs. They can breath in and out of water, they mate out of water, but still lay eggs in the water. Yet they still have fins that resemble fish and they are still classified as fish.

We are a unique species. We have taken a evolutionary road that is like no other species on earth. But in the end we are still a species of animal, a talking primate if you will. You can also say that dinosaurs were a unique group of animals, but in the end they are still reptiles that ruled this planet far longer then we have.

Because of their similarity to monkeys, apes such as chimpanzees and gibbons are often called "monkeys" in informal usage, though they are not monkeys. Sorry to correct you on that, but I sometimes have to correct my colleague on that to.

Comment

I can only speak for myself here, but I find debate on these topics fascinating. At times I do speak to abruptly and curtly, I admit, and apologize for that. I always like to know if I've offended anyone. If the topics are too redundant and worn out, let me know and I can depart in a minute.

Psychologically, part of what you say is correct. I enjoy my faith being tested, but I have reasonable assurance that God exists and Christ is who he said he was. I could be wrong, however.

charlee

18 May 2008 17:14

3 Comments

Charlee don't even talk. you know hidells right

Pure

18 May 2008 17:17

Comment

Sign In

Sign Up?

Login and Debate!
Username:
Password:
Forgot your Password?