In my opinion, all debates can be called discussions but all discussions can not be called debates. A Classic example of debates are the atheists and theist debates. If one observes the kind of debates that go on between atheists and theists, you will get to know that it is in no way useful. The problem is that when the theist approaches the atheist it is with anger so the basis is emotion. As a result the theist will try to defend his own views since the theist will feel that the atheist is attacking him.
So in both cases the atheist will keep attacking and the theist keeps defending his own belief. For an actual consensus to be reached the should be a discussion to discover something. Let me illustrate the problem with the approach the atheist and theist have.
1stly I would like to say that when the atheist is approaching this he does not approach it with I do not know if there is a God, he approaches it like "I deny the very existence of any God". As a result the theist will start reacting. There is a lack of proof the atheist says for the existence of God just as there is a lack of proof for fairies, Santa Claus and so on. The debates goes on with the design theory and so on, infact people like Zakir Naik are calling Islam scientific as a reaction to atheists. If there were no atheists, such claims "Islam is scientific" will not be made at all. Hence we should remember that all arguments made by theists or for that matter by fanatics are merely defensive or reactive arguments nothing more than that.
The next and best step is discovery of something, this can be via discussion or without discussion. If a person were to ask "I do not know if there is a God or not but I would like to know the truth of the matter" with such a person discussion is possible, in that case no matter how many defensive arguments are given by theist he will still question it not to attack something but simply try to find out the truth of the matter. To such a person both Atheists and theists are opposed.
Then we have discovery without discussion, now discovery is actually scientific, accordingly if a person is always trying to discover something new and learn something new such a person should be considered a scientist. Hence spirituality is nothing but discovery of something not simply believing something. Raja Yoga introduced by Vivekananda was not based on belief but simply on discovery and experimentation, so with the new Guru "Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev" he also stresses on discovery not belief in something. We must distinguish between the atheist and a person who is trying to discover something, for example members of the "Nirmukta organisation" are not people who are trying to discover something new but are simply saying we are denying all positive claims. For eg- we deny the existence of a soul. All positive claims are denied by us. This approach is in no way scientific since the proper approach should be "we do not know if there is a soul or not but we would like to know about it". The atheists may use the argument like "we cannot say that we do not know if there is any fairy or not" but new discoveries were always outrageous not necessarily with in the known paradigm.
If one is pursuing spirituality it is better to always look for something beyond, so spirituality is always going beyond the known.
So in both cases the atheist will keep attacking and the theist keeps defending his own belief. For an actual consensus to be reached the should be a discussion to discover something. Let me illustrate the problem with the approach the atheist and theist have.
1stly I would like to say that when the atheist is approaching this he does not approach it with I do not know if there is a God, he approaches it like "I deny the very existence of any God". As a result the theist will start reacting. There is a lack of proof the atheist says for the existence of God just as there is a lack of proof for fairies, Santa Claus and so on. The debates goes on with the design theory and so on, infact people like Zakir Naik are calling Islam scientific as a reaction to atheists. If there were no atheists, such claims "Islam is scientific" will not be made at all. Hence we should remember that all arguments made by theists or for that matter by fanatics are merely defensive or reactive arguments nothing more than that.
The next and best step is discovery of something, this can be via discussion or without discussion. If a person were to ask "I do not know if there is a God or not but I would like to know the truth of the matter" with such a person discussion is possible, in that case no matter how many defensive arguments are given by theist he will still question it not to attack something but simply try to find out the truth of the matter. To such a person both Atheists and theists are opposed.
Then we have discovery without discussion, now discovery is actually scientific, accordingly if a person is always trying to discover something new and learn something new such a person should be considered a scientist. Hence spirituality is nothing but discovery of something not simply believing something. Raja Yoga introduced by Vivekananda was not based on belief but simply on discovery and experimentation, so with the new Guru "Sadguru Jaggi Vasudev" he also stresses on discovery not belief in something. We must distinguish between the atheist and a person who is trying to discover something, for example members of the "Nirmukta organisation" are not people who are trying to discover something new but are simply saying we are denying all positive claims. For eg- we deny the existence of a soul. All positive claims are denied by us. This approach is in no way scientific since the proper approach should be "we do not know if there is a soul or not but we would like to know about it". The atheists may use the argument like "we cannot say that we do not know if there is any fairy or not" but new discoveries were always outrageous not necessarily with in the known paradigm.
If one is pursuing spirituality it is better to always look for something beyond, so spirituality is always going beyond the known.
