Religious debate

[Beskar]

Last post because Kadagar-AV is unhappy with us doing it in this thread.

A very good answer indeed! As for my faith, I am indeed a Christian, but not one of those militant type who discounts the beliefs of others; like many Hindus, I respect all religions, as long as they do not espouse violence. I shall also admit that my beliefs could be entirely wrong, for it would be the hieght of arrogance to make such a claim. I am just compelled to remind others, much as Saint Paul reminded the Greeks, that there is evidence of the "unseen God." I make no claim that the "Christian" idea of God is the only correct one, but feel strongly that one day we shall see him revealed. It is my belief that such an intelligence has already revealed himself in the very beauty of creation, and in the very laws of the universe itself.

Don't you agree that it is too highly ordered as to be a mere accident of design?

Thank You for your very thought provoking critisizm, all the same. I am honored.

I actually ended up editing and expanding, I apologise. It is a habit of mine. I very often write something, then comes to me "I should have said this or that", "perhaps worded that better."

If you permit me to go slightly off-topic, your comment "that there is evidence of the "unseen God." reminded me of another post I made elsewhere, this is over a year old, so there will be some slight differences between now and then:

The most common and basic definition of a God is something that operates outside the natural order. Simply, a God cannot be naturalised regardless of the resources and capabilities that could ever be done. In short, God is the supernatural that can never be proven or shown to exist, it is unfalsible, which means it doesn’t exist. [You cannot prove that something doesn't exist, only that something does exist.]

This theoretically means that anything and everything that does exist can be shown or proven to exist. As God by its very nature of its definition operates only supernaturally, it can never be brought into existence.

This is the path that simply claims that anything that is there can be shown or proven to be there regardless of our own current limitations proposing we can some-day show it. This doesn’t claim everything that is currently classified as supernatural is actually supernatural; it claims that anything supernatural which can never be natural does not exist. As a God operates in the supernatural, therefore not natural, anything which is natural cannot be a God.

This theory does not deny the possibility of Massively Powerful Beings (MPB). A MPB is simply a being or even a technological object of immense power which can currently shock and awe us with our current levels of understanding. In short, it would be going back to 1000 BC with a Helicopter; it would shock and awe the people of that time period through their lack of understanding. In this, it could allow for the possibility of (in pure example) an Artificial Intelligence UFO at the Centre of the Universe controlling everything at a quantum level. The theory would only state that such an MPB is part of the natural world, not the supernatural; therefore, an MPB is not a God (by definition of a supernatural being). For instance, an argument could be that an MPB created the Big Bang, because of its existence and part of the natural world and from greater understanding; this MPB is not supernatural and therefore cannot be a God.

This theory also disagrees with any labelling of anything as a God. While other theist arguments might be the personification of let’s say energy being God. They say that energy creates matter, and is the fundamental source of everything in the Universe, however, as energy is not supernatural, it is not a God by the definition.

This is mainly addressing the concept of god as something classified as something supernatural. However, it highlights the possibility of things such as MPB (Massively Powerful Beings) which could have hypothetically created planet earth. But these could simply be aliens, a highly advanced computer, or things that would adequately fit other definitions, other than "god".

You also speak of things being very ordered and not opened to random chance. What is amazing if when you actually begin the comprehend how large the Universe is, you start to change opinions that perhaps it actually could have been random.
https://img189.imageshack.us/img189/...4813590407.jpg

The Universe is a wonderful, limitless, place of amazement, why stop ourselves short? Like Columbus who thought there might have been another way to India, and ended up discovering America instead, perhaps there is a great surprised around the next corner, why sell ourselves short, untill we find it?

[Reenk Roink]

If for nothing else, next time a hardcore atheist or creationist (or whatever) comes we could point them there, just so we dont have to repeat ourselves ad infinitum.

Well it's already been done on this very forum, a few times before. Notably, this thread. It's fairly long, and it covers a ton of ground, but a lot of what I think you're looking for is there. You get the atheist/agnostic/skeptic position (wikipedia articles galore in the first post), and you also get an attack on atheism and humanism, and a proposed argument for god (standard cosmological argument) which is then defended as sound and attacked in various ways to reject the conclusion. You also get a discussion going on the very notion of rationality a bit and a side track on the logical nature and/or rationality of our common sense beliefs and also of science and inductive knowledge.

I tend to agree with the sentiments that you'd be better off creating a more informal topic (best if it's related to some current event issue) and then let the viewpoints spring. Yes it won't be as organized, and the discussion will meander in different places, but if you really want a debate on a certain argument, it's probably been covered. Also, there are much better places to look, like in books or scholarly articles on philosophy of religion and theology.

[Kadagar_AV]

Reenk Roink, thread is 806 posts long, and first post I read was about contemporary art.

I think we can do a better job than that. Thanks for the link though, might be well worth a read. I still claim that that thread is kind of different from what I had in mind though.

[miotas]

With deists I pretty much meant anyone believing in one supreme being, so Mormons and Catholics would be included. My bad however, would anyone care to teach me what the proper word would be?

Monotheist would be the word you're looking for.

[Kadagar_AV]

Monotheist would be the word you're looking for.

Monotheist it is then! Thanks mate:)

[Strike For The South]

If you are not a protastent who reads the KJV bible you are going to hell

/thread

[Centurion1]

I do sometimes.......

I hate the differences in Bibles. Makes me feel like its all political bull and not spiritual at all

[Kadagar_AV]

I do sometimes.......

I hate the differences in Bibles. Makes me feel like its all political bull and not spiritual at all

Save that for the debate. I would be more than ready to hear you out :)

[Beskar]

I do sometimes.......

I hate the differences in Bibles. Makes me feel like its all political bull and not spiritual at all

The Bible was never to be taken so literially, it never was. The oldest bible in the world (dates around 6th century) doesn't even have half the stories in the KJV and has stories not even in the KJV. There are also the fact catholic church cherry picked everything to go in the bible, and excluded a lot of the books, especially those who don't recognise Jesus' divinity but that of him being a man.

[Kadagar_AV]

The Bible was never to be taken so literially, it never was. The oldest bible in the world (dates around 6th century) doesn't even have half the stories in the KJV and has stories not even in the KJV. There are also the fact catholic church cherry picked everything to go in the bible, and excluded a lot of the books, especially those who don't recognise Jesus' divinity but that of him being a man.

sssssssssssssssh don't spoil it for them.

Beskar, I like you and stuff... But could you PLEASE not pick up any gauntlet, or other hand-accessory you see in this thread?

Logging off now, would wish this thread to be remotely clean when I come back, is that doable?


Sigurd, will PM you :)

[Sigurd]

Logging off now, would wish this thread to be remotely clean when I come back, is that doable?

Sigurd, will PM you :)

Right... you will PM me or I will PM Beskar? I am confused.

And to be perfectly clear. If I am going to debate, I want a set frame with one opponent. I have no time to handle multiple participants attacking my arguments.
One Opponent and a scope of what to debate. All this has to be agreed upon before casting the first st... eh.. argument.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Bible was never to be taken so literially, it never was. The oldest bible in the world (dates around 6th century) doesn't even have half the stories in the KJV and has stories not even in the KJV. There are also the fact catholic church cherry picked everything to go in the bible, and excluded a lot of the books, especially those who don't recognise Jesus' divinity but that of him being a man.

Actually, I'm afraid you are factually incorrect here.

Fun fact: The "Bible" as a coherent and fixed codex is a very modern concept that post-dates the Printing Press, the earliest bible is in fact in Greek, and came from an Orthodox Monastery in the Sinai (I believe that was it, may have been Syria), the date assigned is early 4th Century

the most interesting thing about this codex is that it does contain most of the books in "modern" Bibles and and only a few additional elements, mainly the Shepard of Hermes and a few extra epistles. this is hardly surprising though, as the canon was more of less set by Augustine at the end of the 4th Century, and the Vulgate (on which most modern western Bibles are actually based) was produced by Jerome at only a slightly later date.

[Sigurd]

I think we should limit this debate to one question. A question which will be answered by the debaters.
Every aspect of religion boils down to the one question: Does God exist?
If this one question is answered by: No, then all other aspects of religion falls crumbling to the ground.
The Bible can't be the word of God, Jesus can't be the Messiah and Christianity are built upon deception and is therefore not true.
Not only that... every other theistic religion falls crumbling to the ground.

This is the very core question that any theism vs atheism debate centers around. If this single question is answered, either theism falls or atheism falls.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I think we should limit this debate to one question. A question which will be answered by the debaters.
Every aspect of religion boils down to the one question: Does God exist?
If this one question is answered by: No, then all other aspects of religion falls crumbling to the ground.
The Bible can't be the word of God, Jesus can't be the Messiah and Christianity are built upon deception and is therefore not true.
Not only that... every other theistic religion falls crumbling to the ground.

This is the very core question that any theism vs atheism debate centers around. If this single question is answered, either theism falls or atheism falls.

Mwah...I dunno.

Even if somebody could positively prove that God exists, I'd still not be Christian. I'd oust Him from His throne and get a partay going.

Equality is my religion, it is the object of the slave to defeat his master or die trying.

[Sigurd]

Mwah...I dunno.
Even if somebody could positively prove that God exists, I'd still not be Christian. I'd oust Him from His throne and get a partay going.
Equality is my religion, it is the object of the slave to defeat his master or die trying.

That God exists is not equal to Christianity is true. And how would you oust Him from his throne if it is proven He exists, if He is a he at all? Are you picking up a gauntlet Louis?

[Andres]

Does God exist?

I've always found that a pointless question.

Religion is a matter of believing or not believing; I don't think "does God exist" is a good subject for a debate.

You believe, you don't believe or you haven't made up your mind yet; all of that subject to change when you grow older and get more experience in life. That's it, nothing more to talk about. It's not something you should debate.

Believing requires faith; it's not something rational (note: I don't use "it's not rational" in a pejorative meaning, but as simply stating a fact), so it doesn't belong in a debate. It's also something very personal, some people find strength in religion, others simply can't be bothered. We're all different and that's just fine.

[Louis VI the Fat]

how would you oust Him from his throne if it is proven He exists ?

That which is real is greater than that which is imagined. No greater feat can be imagined than ousting God from His Throne, therefore the feat must necessarily exist.

That's why Christians can never win. If God does not exists, you've been wrong all along. If He does exist, you'll have to worship me, the atheist that ousted Him.

That God exists is not equal to Christianity is true

Well it would be a serious bummer if it turned out He didn't exist, now wouldn't it?

But, if you mean in the sense that a lot of what's worthwhile about Christianity holds up regardless of whether God exists or not, then I would certainly agree.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That which is real is greater than that which is imagined. No greater feat can be imagined than ousting God from His Throne, therefore the feat must necessarily exist.

That's why Christians can never win. If God does not exists, you've been wrong all along. If He does exist, you'll have to worship me, the atheist that ousted Him.


Well it would be a serious bummer if it turned out He didn't exist, now wouldn't it?

But, if you mean in the sense that a lot of what's worthwhile about Christianity holds up regardless of whether God exists or not, then I would certainly agree.

Well, if God is God, he's not going anywhere, you are. However, I believe Sigurd's point was that proving that God exists does not prove He is the Christian God.

As to whether Christianity has any worth without God: no, I think it does not because the Divine Drama requires a Director, and the Children require a Father.

[Andres]

As to whether Christianity has any worth without God: no, I think it does not because the Divine Drama requires a Director, and the Children require a Father.

Isn't the idea of equality which Louis worships so fervently a child from the Christian "we're all equal before God"?

So yes, even without God, christianity has its' merits, because that part of your Holy Book offers a first step in the thought process that'll eventually lead to "we're all equal before the law", which is nowadays one of the fundamental principles of our legal systems.

Even if you don't believe in God, some parts of Christianity make sense.

[Sigurd]

I've always found that a pointless question.

Alas, this is the very core question in the theist vs. atheist drama.
If both groups were content with belief and letting the other keep their belief, there would be no friction. Yet this thread, among many others like it hidden in the Backroom, testifies that it is not so.

Every debate or discussion across the expanse between the two groups always builds upon the presupposition that God exist (theist) or God don't exist (atheist).

If there should be any debate between representatives from those two groups then it should be dealing with that particular presupposition. All other debates are built on it anyways and will always boil down to it.

[Andres]

Alas, this is the very core question in the theist vs. atheist drama.
If both groups were content with belief and letting the other keep their belief, there would be no friction. Yet this thread, among many others like it hidden in the Backroom, testifies that it is not so.

Every debate or discussion across the expanse between the two groups always builds upon the presupposition that God exist (theist) or God don't exist (atheist).

If there should be any debate between representatives from those two groups then it should be dealing with that particular presupposition. All other debates are built on it anyways and will always boil down to it.

Yes, I know people keep talking about the "Does God exist" question; that doesn't mean it's not pointless, though

What's so wrong with live and let live?

[Sigurd]

Yes, I know people keep talking about the "Does God exist" question; that doesn't mean it's not pointless, though

What's so wrong with life and let life?

You probably mean live and let live...
No problem with me as I sit on the fence on this issue anyway. You got to ask Kadgar or any of the other individuals that keep opening these threads.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Isn't the idea of equality which Louis worships so fervently a child from the Christian "we're all equal before God"?

So yes, even without God, christianity has its' merits, because that part of your Holy Book offers a first step in the thought process that'll eventually lead to "we're all equal before the law", which is nowadays one of the fundamental principles of our legal systems.

Even if you don't believe in God, some parts of Christianity make sense.

It doesn't work so well without God though, because people are clearly not in all ways equal on Earth, and the "all equal" element falters without the butressing of belief in God.

Still, different argument.

[Reenk Roink]

Believing requires faith; it's not something rational

Not necessarily. Assuming the meaning of 'faith' is used here as believing without evidence (also assuming 'rational' is tied up with notions of evidence), I would actually think very few people believe because of faith. There are many personal experiences which constitute the evidence for the believers in god. Of course, these are hard to put forth in any kind of debate except as peripheral considerations, as they are of limited value to others being personally confined.

That is precisely why people have developed these arguments from god, relying on logic (used in the actual formal sense describing deductive form and not abused in the colloquial sense as is done so much) and based off premises from the world around us and common sense notions. This is a more widely accessible set of 'evidence' and so the arguments are purported to be rational. It's pretty telling that many a believer will not believe mainly because of these 'rational' arguments for god, but rather they are purported to show that such a belief is indeed rational.

Again, we got in this discussion in the thread I brought up before, discussing notions of rational belief. This is exactly why the common sense beliefs we hold and scientific beliefs/inductive knowledge were brought up and criticized harshly for not being rational, both based on their failure to adhere to logic and the lack of evidence. It was to show that the skepticism applied to belief in god /religion could just as well be applied to the above-mentioned, perhaps harsher, as the latter also were shown to not conform with simple logical form and rules.

[Beskar]

There is also another question.
Let's say a being created the Universe, why should we worship it and go to Mass every Sunday?

Would it even know or care if we did or not? How would we even know?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, if God is God, he's not going anywhere, you are.

I wouldn't bet on it...


After all, why should I rule out becoming God as a career option if it has been managed before by a Palestinian carpenter*? A man's got to have ambition.


The others can stay as far as I'm concerned. We'll just have to teach Catholic children that four is one rather than three is one.

*yes he wasn't a humble carpenter but what we'd call an architect / foreman. A studied man. But that ruins the punchline.

[Centurion1]

are you gods son. because there is that little bit. if there is in fact a god and christians are in fact correct than jesus was in fact the son of god. and if he was the son of god he did not really choose it as a career no more than a prince decides to be king (barring asassination ) deus rex.

[Beskar]

God hates democracy, he is a totalitarian dictator at worst, Feudal Monarch at best.

[gaelic cowboy]

I now totally believe in God this revelation has come to me in order that he will not end the world before I get to see TopGearLive in Dublin next September. Thank you oh Cthulu

[Rhyfelwyr]

God hates democracy, he is a totalitarian dictator at worst, Feudal Monarch at best.

Indeed, there are many similarities between Christianity and Marxism. The belief that human history is determined by forces which the individual cannot control, the collectivist ethos, the struggle of the afflicted in a world which will only persecute them, and the apocalyptic battle at the end of it which results in the new heaven and earth/workers paradise.