In this thread you will find information about the topics that you might encounter here in the R&P as well as common arguments you'll see and a term list of words that are used here that you may not know.  To begin with...

Please visit the forum guidelines thread to learn about the rules of the forum.

Topics you are likely to find:

Religion

• Beliefs about God
  
• News concerning religion
  
• Support for and from those who share your religious beliefs
  
• Discussion about, criticism of, and support for different kinds of religion
  
• The content and interpretation of scripture

Philosophy

• The nature of reality  
  
• Means of knowing and experiencing the world
  
• The reasons for religious belief
  
• Criticism and discussion about how people think
  
• Criticism and discussion concerning the attributes of God(s)

Ethics

• How people should live their lives
  
• Ways of determining what is right and wrong
  
• Criticism of and support for ethical systems
  
• Discussion of ethicists

General

• Knowledgeable members who will try and help with philosophical and religious questions you might have
  
• Support from members for your faith
  
• A broad range of responses from many perspectives regarding questions about life the universe and everything

Please make sure to see the term list for some specialized terminology you might come across in this forum.

Some common arguments:
Look at these quick overviews of common arguments that are used in this forum or debates that are frequently had.  In doing so, you can avoid common pitfalls that novices make and better articulate your position on issues.

Atheism vs. Theism

• Pascal's Wager
  
• Ontological Argument for God
  
• Empirical Arguments for God
  
• Argument from Miracles
  
• Atheism Have No Meaning for Life
  
• Atheists Have No Morals/Belief System
  
• The Problem of Evil

Christianity and Islam

• The Bible Says So Therefore It's True
  
• Islam is a Religion of War
  
• The Old Testament Says To Kill Disobedient Children
  
• God. Hates. Fags.
  
• Christianity is Evil.  Just Look at the Crusades.

Scientific and Ethical Debates

• God vs. the Big Bang
  
• Creation vs. Evolution
  
• Homosexuality
  
• Masturbation
  
• Premarital/Extramarital Sex
  
• Euthanasia
  
• The Death Penalty
  
• War
  
• Abortion
  
• Environmentalism/Animal Rights

Religion, Philosophy, and Ethics Resources:
Find Internet resources on various religions, philosophers, or ethical issues.

• Christianity
  
• Atheism
  
• Islam

Post edited at 5:40 am on Dec. 4, 2009 by Prince o palities

-------
Robbie

The Argument:

If the Christian God doesn't exist, whether or not you believe you'll rot in the ground when you die. If the Christian God does exist, the believers will get eternal bliss and the nonbelievers get damnation. Wouldn't it be better to believe than to take that chance?

The Counterargument:

There are two problems.

1) The argument assumes that there are only two possibilities: either (A) the Christian God exists or (B) the universe is a cold and godless place and our lives are meaningless.  This is a false dichotomy. There are other possibilities. What if Islam is correct? What if the Buddha was correct? What if Hinduism is correct? The diversity of beleifs in the world makes such a "either/or" scenario impossible. What's more, it precludes yet another option that all men who have ever lived have been wrong and the tru is yet unknown.

2) The argument assumes that belief as a form of gambling with God is sufficient for salvation. Serious consideration of Christian doctrine will suggest to you that it is not. Only genuine faith results in salvation.

Post edited at 4:35 pm on Aug. 7, 2009 by Prince o palities

-------
Robbie

An ontological argument for the existence of God is any argument that tries to prove that God can be known to exist intuitively, that is without any evidence beyond humanity's power of reason. The two most common forms of the argument are given below.

Anselm's Argument:

In his Proslogion, Anselm laid out the first ontological argument for the existence of God.

1. God is something than which nothing greater can be conceived.
2. God can exist, at least in the human mind.
3. It is greater to exist in reality than only in the mind.
4. Therefore, God must exist in reality in order for Him to be "something than which nothing greater can be conceived."

The Counterargument:

Anselm was challenged in his own day by Gaunilo of Marmoutiers who applied Anselm's argument to the existence of a mythical island. He proposed that if one were to conceive of the greatest possible island, that by Anselm's logic, this island must exist in reality. Since such a paradise island clearly did not exist in reality, Anselm's logic must somehow be flawed.

Descartes Argument

Rene Descartes presented multiples forms of the ontological argument in his Meditations.

1. God is by definition a perfect being
2. Perfection has existence as a predicate
3. Therefore God must exist

The Counter Argument

That existence is a predicate has been challenged by such notable philosophers as Immanuel Kant and Bertrand Russell.  Kant pointed out that existence is a grammatical rather than an existential predicate, something which is true or false in reality rather than by definition.  Russell made a similar observation when he equates existence with an instance of a set of defining characteristics rather than part of the definition itself.

Post edited at 7:48 am on Dec. 4, 2009 by Prince o palities

-------
Robbie

This may or may not include other denominations of Christianity, depending on the speaker. Therefore, people who are of a religion which is not Christianity are in the thrall of Satan. Here's the interesting thing about this assertion. The one who gives this argument is always Christian, and Judaism is not Christianity. Thus, assuming the validity of this argument, Judaism is of the Devil.

Jesus, and all of the original Christians, were Jews. Jesus was born a Jew, Jesus engaged in Jewish customs, and therefore the person asserting the above argument as fact is calling Jesus tainted by the hand of the devil, not to mention the apostles as well.

I doubt this is intentional, as such a person likely sees Judaism as Christianity: The Prequel, so this is just to point out that you are being an idiot even by your own beliefs when you say this.

Here's two things to keep in mind.
A. If Satan is farsighted enough to muck up Christianity by founding false religions before Christianity even exists, why the hell can't he avoid losing the Apocalypse? A ties into B.
B. If you think that all other religions were formulated by Satan, who is to say that Christianity is not the grandest ruse of them all? After all, if I were Satan the best thing in my book would be to have a false religion a billion-strong claiming to adhere to the ways of my enemy and making a total mess of it because their fundamental beliefs were satanic in origin and fundamentally flawed.

Conclusion: Don't even try it. It is just opening a whole new can of worms. Evil, goat-footed, horned worms.

-------
Robbie

This has become popular since the 9/11 attacks on the United States. The logic goes that since some Muslims did bad things, all Muslims must be bad. This isn't entirely based on those attacks, of course. Those nasty middle eastern Muslims are attacking those poor innocent Jews and the whole place is a clusterfuck of violence and extremism.

Guess what Christians? There but for the grace of God go ye. Okay, maybe that's a bad phrase to use because you'll take it literally. The kind of Christian who says these things is no different from the extremist wacko Muslim in that they both take bias and misinformation and mix it in a pot called religious nutjobbery to produce baseless hatred. Congratulations.

Israel isn't the innocent lamb you make it out to be, Muslims are people just like you, and turn the other motherfucking cheek for once.

Conclusion: Total and complete BS. If someone tries citing that false Koran passage as a means of refuting this, I will repeat that it is a false passage (which, by the way, I can prove because there's a Koran on one of my bookshelves) and then I will proceed to come to your house and paint your dog a funny color.

-------
Robbie

Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in any gods or spiritual whatsahooses (plural of whatsahoosis).

Conclusion: You don't know what you're talking about if you say this, all subsequent and prior arguments you made can be dismissed. By the way, remember: I before E except after C and in the word 'atheist'.

-------
Robbie

This is also a fairly ridiculous thing to say. This is often said because the person writing the post seems to think that the only system of belief and morality is their own, and nobody else is capable of having one. This is nonsense, of course. Everyone has some sense of right and wrong except complete sociopaths. Since most non-Christians don't skewer puppies for the sheer unadulterated hell of it, I'm going to assume they aren't all sociopaths. That's right, even the atheists.

As for a belief system... in addition to God, I believe in gravity, chicken and dumplings being delicious, photosynthesis requires carbon dioxide, and a whole host of other things. People can have a sense of right and wrong without a God. "Do unto others" is not exclusive to Christians. Anyone with some degree of empathy can say, "I don't like this done to me, so I won't do it to you."

Conclusion: Total bullshit.

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:16 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

Stop there. Don't go past the third word there. Atheists and people of religions with no tied to Judaism are not going to accept any part of the bible as fact. Deal with it. Want to know why?
Why should they accept the Bible as true? Because it is true, right?
How do they know it is true? Because you say so? Because it is? Because it says in the bible that the bible is true?

They are all batshit insane reasons. I could pick up the Koran and do the same thing to you. Would you believe it? If you would, keep preaching until I convert you to Islam. If you wouldn't, shaddup.

Conclusion: Shaddup.

-------
Robbie

This sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? Well, except for the part where we all deserve eternal damnation because some ass ate an apple six thousand years ago. The only time this is a good thing to say is following the question "I am a sinner, who can redeem me?" If you just walk up to people and say that, they're going to give you a blank look and carry on. If you say it online, you'll likely be torn apart. See #7. You have no proof. You're doing the religious equivalent of poking someone in the arm and saying, "C'mooooon. Beliiiiieve. C'moooooon." Generally, it doesn't work.

Conclusion: As effective as a sponge at a gunfight.

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:44 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

Aww. The touchy feely side of conversion attempts. Far more useful than the full "God loves you. So love back or He'll make you pay!" That's not really giving the image of an unconditionally loving father. For an idea of what you are making God look like, watch the stalker movie Swimfan. Which I have never seen, but I am assuming to be relevant.

Conclusion: I'm not saying don't use this, because as Christian arguments go this (by itself) is a fairly nonoffensive one. I just suggest that you be ready to explain why an all-loving God would have need for a place of eternal torture, because that is going to come up pretty damn quick. Also, the "Jesus loves you, but everyone else thinks you're an asshole" thing is really funny.

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:43 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

Your life doing a 180 when you converted is not proof of a miracle. It is proof of you being capable of turning your own life around when you have a system of morals to fanatically adhere to. The world seems brighter because there is now apparently a meaning to it all, and the shadows seem less shadowy. Bad things that happen, why still bad of course, are not as horrible as they once were because there is a God, there is a plan, and the spaceship is coming! (Strike that very last part. I stole those final thirteen words from the comedy act of Maria Bamford when she talked about cults. I didn't have the heart to change it.)

Conclusion: Unless everyone you know wins the lottery the day after you convert, I'm having a hard time seeing something miraculous going on. "I stopped drinking" is not the kind of thing people usually envision when somebody says miracle. Mostly because atheists are capable of that as well.

-------
Robbie

Oh, goody. Does He now? This ties into numbers nine and twelve, by the way. First of all, how can an all-loving God hate? Doesn't the capacity for hate kind of defeat the purpose of saying "all loving"? Shouldn't you say somewhat loving, or kinda liking? Secondly, does God hate brunettes? Spaniards? Does he hate other people who are born in a certain way and cannot change what they fundamentally are?

I hate to be the neuroscience guy that comes to tell you this but homosexuality... well, just read number twelve would you?

Conclusion: Nonsensical gibberish. Read twelve. Do it now, or I'll be quite cross.

-------
Robbie

No, it isn't. Homosexuality is a matter of brain chemistry that is predetermined by genetics. Homosexuality is not a sin, because homosexuality is a state of being, not an action. Sin requires that you do something. For example, being a gay person is not any more inherently sinful than being a person. However, by your own religion, rubbing penises together like firestarters is the no-no. Actually, if someone wants to post that interpretation of the original law that only labels it as sinful if you are taking and not giving (because you are taking a woman's role) then that would be ubersweet. Uber. Homosexuality occurs in... what was it, now... 11 animal species at least? Since last I checked humans have free will and swans don't, that means homosexuality is not a choice, and since it happens in nature it is natural. Oh, it can be natural and bad, but don't call it unnatural either.

Conclusion: Sorry, no dice.

-------
Robbie

How can God? Honestly, at least we can prove the universe exists. If you honestly want an answer from this question more thorough than what you'll get on this board, buy a damn book. Have tea with Hawkings or something. Lay on Einstein's grave and hope something seeps in via osmosis. However, this might be seen as avoiding the question. Your argument is that God, by His nature, does not need and does not have a beginning. Great. That's what people are saying about the Universe.

Conclusion: Hated to burst your bubble, but eh...

(Edited by Shuichi at 2:43 am on June 4, 2006)

-------
Robbie

I agree totally. Too bad nobody believes that human beings evolved from monkeys. It is believed that humans and APES (not monkeys, those are two distinct classifications) share a common ancestor. It looks something like this:
                           ____ Humans
Common Ancestor--|
                           ____ Apes
(If that isn't aligned properly... like, fix it or something.)

See how humans didn't come from apes? Neat, huh? Granted, that is extremely oversimplified, but I'm writing this to a target audience that is extremely oversimple.

Conclusion: That is like saying we evolved from a sloth. Shut up.

-------
Robbie