Debates: Topics

If you would like to see a topic added, please let me know

 ----Philosophy and Religion----
Is Scientisim a prevalent Philosophy in the atheist community?
What is religion?
What is a cult?
Is morality objective?

Is it always irrational to believe in God?

Can faith be rational?

Is Atheism a positive belief?

----Religion in Education----
Is it ethical to teach religion to children?
Should religion be taught in public schools?
Is the bible a historically accurate document?

----Religion in Politics----
Is it acceptable for religious entities to expect non believers to follow (moral precept)?

Should religious leadership advocate government policy?

Is the U.S. founded on christian principles?

 ----Religion in Science----
Is (Sacred religious text) a scientific document?
Has the (Sacred religious text) been changed as scientific understanding progressed?
Should the scientific community follow the (moral precept) of (Religious entity)?
----Religion in society----
Is the US/world in a state of Moral Decline?
Should the (Sacred religious text) be interpreted differently as society changes?

Should a religion be judged based on the actions of its followers?

Is religion the foundation of the west's moral standards? 

----Religious interpretation----

Does the Bible suggest a flat earth?

Does the qur'an advocate violence against non believers?

Does (Sacred religious text) label Apostasy a crime?

Are the creation accounts metaphorical?

Are the apocalypse accounts metaphorical?  

Is buddhism a religion?

There are many topics I would personally love to tackle.  The only reason I have not started them is because I simply do not have the time to put forth the needed effort to discussing those topics.  Also, there seems to not be many in this particular forum with my specific perspective and I hate the idea of that perspective never even being addressed simply because I might not have the time.  Some of those topics are the following:

The historicity of religion: For those who claim Christianity is a myth, at what point are its claims true and at what point are they false?

Has the New Testament canon been changed over the centuries or is the texts we have accurate renditions of the original? If they are correct, did the writers believe what they wrote to be true?

Putting forth one's own morality within politics: At what point is it right for one to insert his religious beliefs within governmental law?  At what point are we to expect others to live by our own morality and what point not?

Is one's religious or nonreligious beliefs truly based on seeking after facts as one claims or is much of the debate often rooted more within emotion?  As an example, is the issue of the Problem of Evil more an emotional problem or a logical one?

These are just a few discussions I have considered lately but, as said, simply have not had much time to devote to such things lately.

The historicity of religion: For those who claim Christianity is a myth, at what point are its claims true and at what point are they false? mindstorm

I'd definitely participate in a debate in the definition and labeling of non-belief. I'd argue that everyone who would technically be "atheist" isn't necessarily atheist, since non-belief is as broad in scope as religion.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]The historicity of religion: For those who claim Christianity is a myth, at what point are its claims true and at what point are they false? foxhound_fox

I'd definitely participate in a debate in the definition and labeling of non-belief. I'd argue that everyone who would technically be "atheist" isn't necessarily atheist, since non-belief is as broad in scope as religion.

I'm trying to come up with a way to phrase that question in a more specific manner. Something along the lines of

"Are the historic events of (sacred religious text) an accurate account of history?" but that still seems too vauge. Volumes have been written on this subject by some of the smartest men who ever lived, I don't think a 500 post discussion would do it justice.   

I had an envigorated discussion on another forum aboiut atheism being more than a lack of belief in God(s), although it has been apprached here before, I think.

I had an envigorated discussion on another forum about atheism being more than a lack of belief in God(s), although it has been apprached here before, I think. i.e. Can atheism be both a belief and a lack of belief?

Other stuff: 

Are there non-spiritual equivalents of spiritual feelings, or are they reserved for the faithful?

Is relgion coercive?  

Are Lady Gaga's "Pray For Japan" wristbands going to work? 

RationalAtheist

I've gone and quoted myself there, but I still stand by all of it. 

I have a fun one... Does the Omnipotence Paradox imply that "an omnipotent being" doesn't exist?12thArcane

I'd be keen to take on that one. I would argue for the negative, no the paradox does not imply the non-existence of an omnipotent god.

Alright, I've updated the list to include the suggestions I've seen posted as well as a few ideas of my own. Right now, most of the topics are weighted against religion and I would like to change that. It is easy to be critical of ideas that you don't agree with, inversely it is much more difficult to criticize your own positions, that is why I am counting on our religious posters to submit ideas for debate topics. Preferably, topics that will require a little more heavy lifting by the atheist position.   

If there is anything I have missed, please let me know.

I have a paradox for you:

In order to know that there is no god you have to have been everywhere in the Universe and know everything about it to prove there isn't any gods or goddesses, but that is omniscience or omnipresence and that is a quality reserved for only dieties. Therefore in order to know that there is no god you have to be a god. That is why athiesm is a contradiction. Agnosticism is far more logical and knowledgable, because you're admitting that you don't know if god exists. It is wiser to admit that you don't know something when it comes to a topic that you truly don't know much about.

Here's another interesting idea:

Technically all gods, angels and demons are extraterrestrials, because they're from beyond Earth, which is the definition of extra (beyond) terrestrial (Earth). I believe that all of these beings that visited Earth thousands of years ago that posed as gods and goddesses were most likely aliens. Why would Apollo need a chariot to fly around the Earth in? A chariot is just how people described what they saw as a UFO. That's not to say that there isn't an actual god out there, but rather the gods people have worshipped are all just aliens with advanced technology, which looked like magic to their primitive minds.

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"]I have a paradox for you: In order to know that there is no god you have to have been everywhere in the Universe and know everything about it to prove there isn't any gods or goddesses, but that is omniscience or omnipresence and that is a quality reserved for only dieties. Therefore in order to know that there is no god you have to be a god. That is why athiesm is a contradiction. Agnosticism is far more logical and knowledgable, because you're admitting that you don't know if god exists. It is wiser to admit that you don't know something when it comes to a topic that you truly don't know much about. RationalAtheist

Here's another interesting idea: Technically all gods, angels and demons are extraterrestrials, because they're from beyond Earth, which is the definition of extra (beyond) terrestrial (Earth). I believe that all of these beings that visited Earth thousands of years ago that posed as gods and goddesses were most likely aliens. Why would Apollo need a chariot to fly around the Earth in? A chariot is just how people described what they saw as a UFO. That's not to say that there isn't an actual god out there, but rather the gods people have worshipped are all just aliens with advanced technology, which looked like magic to their primitive minds.JLCrogue

All the evidence can be found by watching Ancient Aliens, which is a very interesting TV show. There's tons of evidence out there to support it, but I'm willing to change my belief on it, because I'm open-minded. I said that they're most likely aliens and I'm not certain that it was aliens that visited Earth and influenced humanity. Just look at all of the amazing wonders that humans made thousands of years ago. For example, look at the Pyramids they built, they couldn't have been built with the primitive tools that many historians believed they had. There had to be influence from more technologically advanced beings.

I have a paradox for you:

In order to know that there is no god you have to have been everywhere in the Universe and know everything about it to prove there isn't any gods or goddesses, but that is omniscience or omnipresence and that is a quality reserved for only dieties. Therefore in order to know that there is no god you have to be a god. That is why athiesm is a contradiction. Agnosticism is far more logical and knowledgable, because you're admitting that you don't know if god exists. It is wiser to admit that you don't know something when it comes to a topic that you truly don't know much about.JLCrogue

All the evidence can be found by watching Ancient Aliens, which is a very interesting TV show. There's tons of evidence out there to support it, but I'm willing to change my belief on it, because I'm open-minded. I said that they're most likely aliens and I'm not certain that it was aliens that visited Earth and influenced humanity. Just look at all of the amazing wonders that humans made thousands of years ago. For example, look at the Pyramids they built, they couldn't have been built with the primitive tools that many historians believed they had. There had to be influence from more technologically advanced beings.JLCrogue

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"]

I have a paradox for you:

In order to know that there is no god you have to have been everywhere in the Universe and know everything about it to prove there isn't any gods or goddesses, but that is omniscience or omnipresence and that is a quality reserved for only dieties. Therefore in order to know that there is no god you have to be a god. That is why athiesm is a contradiction. Agnosticism is far more logical and knowledgable, because you're admitting that you don't know if god exists. It is wiser to admit that you don't know something when it comes to a topic that you truly don't know much about.Genetic_Code

Why must you know everything to disprove something that is omnipresent?

Because you have to have been everywhere in the Universe and to know everything in order to know that there is a god or not. It's impossible for us to prove or disprove that there's a god or not.

[QUOTE="JLCrogue"]All the evidence can be found by watching Ancient Aliens, which is a very interesting TV show. There's tons of evidence out there to support it, but I'm willing to change my belief on it, because I'm open-minded. I said that they're most likely aliens and I'm not certain that it was aliens that visited Earth and influenced humanity. Just look at all of the amazing wonders that humans made thousands of years ago. For example, look at the Pyramids they built, they couldn't have been built with the primitive tools that many historians believed they had. There had to be influence from more technologically advanced beings.RationalAtheist

South Park made fun of them saying that a negative statement doesn't prove a positive statement. I saw that episode too and I've seen Ancient Aliens before and that's not how they show evidence of aliens.