Debate

[RevMARKSman]

I'd like to start an honest debate about the existence of God, to try and settle this once and for all for the theists and agnostics. I'll play devil's advocate and represent the theist position (don't worry theists, I'll use the best arguments I can find). I just need another atheist (or more than one) to refute my challenges. I think I know who will win, but let's wait and find out. We should cover all issues - morality, objectivity, science, causation, epistemology, semantics, belief, etc. I'm getting tired of the little mini-conflicts in different threads about one issue.

[ichneumon]

define "God" - whose god are you defending?

[RevMARKSman]

While debating scriptures, I'll be taking the Christian side as I don't have much knowledge of the other "holy books." But on all the other issues I'll be defending just the concept of a being that caused the universe and is not limited by the laws of the universe.

[Publius]

I'd like to start an honest debate about the existence of God, to try and settle this once and for all for the theists and agnostics. I'll play devil's advocate and represent the theist position (don't worry theists, I'll use the best arguments I can find). I just need another atheist (or more than one) to refute my challenges. I think I know who will win, but let's wait and find out. We should cover all issues - morality, objectivity, science, causation, epistemology, semantics, belief, etc. I'm getting tired of the little mini-conflicts in different threads about one issue.

Sounds mildly interesting.

I'm game.

[La Comédie Noire]

Hit me with your best shot.

[Zero]

Explain to me how it is you are able to define the concept of a absolute power, with absolute knowlege, absolute understanding, and absolute will; that encompases time, space, knowlege, and thought.

Furthermore, explain to me how it has a will, why it would have us know of it's existance, and why (if it really HAS a plan) we are here to carry out the "will" of an infinate being.

Good luck.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 12:24 am
Explain to me how it is you are able to define the concept of a absolute power, with absolute knowlege, absolute understanding, and absolute will; that encompases time, space, knowlege, and thought.

Furthermore, explain to me how it has a will, why it would have us know of it's existance, and why (if it really HAS a plan) we are here to carry out the "will" of an infinate being.

Good luck.
God: a supernatural power that exists beyond the laws of this universe. Has absolute power and absolute knowledge. Is beyond time.


He created the universe and its laws, and would like us to recognize Him as the Sustainer of the universe and everything in it. God has a will because He is the beginning of everything, and wilfully created the universe. Again, He is beyond all laws of the universe. We must carry out His will, because He has created us and wants us to know Him. Those who do not believe or do not follow Him will spend an eternity away from Him.

[KC]

God: a supernatural power that exists beyond the laws of this universe. Has absolute power and absolute knowledge. Is beyond time.


He created the universe and its laws, and would like us to recognize Him as the Sustainer of the universe and everything in it. God has a will because He is the beginning of everything, and wilfully created the universe. Again, He is beyond all laws of the universe. We must carry out His will, because He has created us and wants us to know Him. Those who do not believe or do not follow Him will spend an eternity away from Him.


Now prove it. Can't? Then you're wrong.

[RevMARKSman]

First, you need to realize the limits of logic and proof in this situation.


For example, on the Weather Channel this morning, some guy said it was snowing in Minnesota. Why do you believe him? Why would you even believe a video of the so-called snow in Minnesota? That could be completely made up. Do you believe it is snowing in Minnesota without even being there?

Why do you believe the scientists when they say they have come up with a new breakthrough in some sort of technology? You haven't seen them doing this, you haven't seen their experiments. Hell, why should you even believe that England is an island? You haven't walked around the edges and discovered that you came right back to where you started.


You believe what other people say, even when the things they assert cannot be shown to you at the moment. So why not believe that God exists? 80% of the world believes in some way. They all have had personal experiences with God that can be counted as evidence.

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 05:11 pm
First, you need to realize the limits of logic and proof in this situation.


For example, on the Weather Channel this morning, some guy said it was snowing in Minnesota. Why do you believe him? Why would you even believe a video of the so-called snow in Minnesota? That could be completely made up. Do you believe it is snowing in Minnesota without even being there?

Why do you believe the scientists when they say they have come up with a new breakthrough in some sort of technology? You haven't seen them doing this, you haven't seen their experiments. Hell, why should you even believe that England is an island? You haven't walked around the edges and discovered that you came right back to where you started.


You believe what other people say, even when the things they assert cannot be shown to you at the moment. So why not believe that God exists? 80% of the world believes in some way. They all have had personal experiences with God that can be counted as evidence.
Do you have a video of God? Do you? Do you? If you do than I would believe you. Do you have a radar system that shows when god is going to fall? If you do than I would believe you. I promise. If you dont than your arguement is not only illogical but just plain silly.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 05:11 pm
80% of the world believes in some way. They all have had personal experiences with God that can be counted as evidence.
Personal 'experience' is not proof. When a single person makes ludacris claims, we call it insanity. When large numbers of people make such notions, we call it religion.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by MrDoom+December 11, 2006 05:47 pm--> (MrDoom @ December 11, 2006 05:47 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2006 05:11 pm
80% of the world believes in some way. They all have had personal experiences with God that can be counted as evidence.
Personal 'experience' is not proof. When a single person makes ludacris claims, we call it insanity. When large numbers of people make such notions, we call it religion. [/b]
Deal with it.

[amanondeathrow]

We must carry out His will, because He has created us and wants us to know Him. Those who do not believe or do not follow Him will spend an eternity away from Him.

If god does in fact exist how can you assume that he rewards beleif if countless devoted Christians have suffered horrible deaths? What leads you to beleive that he actually wants us to "know" him if he has not allowed any concret evidence, beyond "experience" , to find its way to earth.

Since it is impossible to answer these questions, assuming anything beyond the possibility of a higher being is ridiculous (not to say that one should assume such a thing).

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 07:22 pm

We must carry out His will, because He has created us and wants us to know Him. Those who do not believe or do not follow Him will spend an eternity away from Him.

If god does in fact exist how can you assume that he rewards beleif if countless devoted Christians have suffered horrible deaths?
Christianity would tell you that those Christians were rewarded in the afterlife for their faith.

To Christians, and people of most other faiths, this life is but a pitstop on the way to a better place; hence death in this life is actually desirable.

I look at it from the Buddhist point of view, frankly.

[Publius]

Let's see, your definition is:



God: a supernatural power that exists beyond the laws of this universe. Has absolute power and absolute knowledge. Is beyond time.

Define "supernatural".

Explain how something can "exist" outside of the Universe.

Explain how something can exist without a nature (God has a supernature, note)

Does God's absolute power include the ability to go against or change his nature, including his absolute power?

How is something "beyond time"? Time is an effect of the physical properties of matter, akin somewhat to gravity. The only way something can be "beyond" this is if it does consist of matter, that is, does not exist.



He created the universe and its laws, and would like us to recognize Him as the Sustainer of the universe and everything in it.

Why? Why does he have wants?


God has a will because He is the beginning of everything, and wilfully created the universe.

This is not statement about "why" God has a will, it's just restating that he does.

Please exlain WHY God created the Universe or WHY he wants things.

Surely an all-powerful all-knowing God would know exactly what to do to fulfill his wants and have the power to do it instantly.


Again, He is beyond all laws of the universe. We must carry out His will, because He has created us and wants us to know Him.

Why?

Our parents create us and want us to love them, but, after a certain age, we are not required to follow their rules.

Explain to me how it is that created things MUST, as a rule, follow their creators.

I can't see how this is demonstrable.


Those who do not believe or do not follow Him will spend an eternity away from Him.

Why?

[t_wolves_fan]

Publius, why do you care?

[Publius]

For example, on the Weather Channel this morning, some guy said it was snowing in Minnesota. Why do you believe him?

Because I have good reason to (he is an authority on the matter) and no reason not to (he has no incentive to lie.)

Also, because it doesn't really matter to me whether it is or is not snowing.


Why would you even believe a video of the so-called snow in Minnesota? That could be completely made up. Do you believe it is snowing in Minnesota without even being there?

It depends entirely on the situation. In the middle of summer, no, I would be highly skeptical, in winter, probably.

I can only make decisions based on the evidence I have.



Why do you believe the scientists when they say they have come up with a new breakthrough in some sort of technology?

Because, if I were so inclined, I could test it myself.


You haven't seen them doing this, you haven't seen their experiments.

But I could.


Hell, why should you even believe that England is an island? You haven't walked around the edges and discovered that you came right back to where you started.

I could fly there tommorow, if I wished.



You believe what other people say, even when the things they assert cannot be shown to you at the moment. So why not believe that God exists?

Because that cannot be shown to me, period. The claims you mentioned above can all be tested and verified. How do you verify the existence of God?



80% of the world believes in some way.

And?


They all have had personal experiences with God

Did you ask every one of them?

Can you prove that "all" had these experiences? Or are you attempting to deceive me?


that can be counted as evidence.

Evidence, but not good evidence.

[Publius]

Publius, why do you care?

I derive enjoyment from it.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:48 pm

Publius, why do you care?

I derive enjoyment from it.
Gotchya.

:lol:

[Publius]

Gotchya.

:lol:

It's a very easy way to feel intelligent.

That is, after all, what we're all looking for, right? An ego boost?

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 03:39 pm
Let's see, your definition is:



God: a supernatural power that exists beyond the laws of this universe. Has absolute power and absolute knowledge. Is beyond time.

Define "supernatural".

Explain how something can "exist" outside of the Universe.

Explain how something can exist without a nature (God has a supernature, note)

Does God's absolute power include the ability to go against or change his nature, including his absolute power?

How is something "beyond time"? Time is an effect of the physical properties of matter, akin somewhat to gravity. The only way something can be "beyond" this is if it does consist of matter, that is, does not exist.



He created the universe and its laws, and would like us to recognize Him as the Sustainer of the universe and everything in it.

Why? Why does he have wants?


God has a will because He is the beginning of everything, and wilfully created the universe.

This is not statement about "why" God has a will, it's just restating that he does.

Please exlain WHY God created the Universe or WHY he wants things.

Surely an all-powerful all-knowing God would know exactly what to do to fulfill his wants and have the power to do it instantly.


Again, He is beyond all laws of the universe. We must carry out His will, because He has created us and wants us to know Him.

Why?

Our parents create us and want us to love them, but, after a certain age, we are not required to follow their rules.

Explain to me how it is that created things MUST, as a rule, follow their creators.

I can't see how this is demonstrable.


Those who do not believe or do not follow Him will spend an eternity away from Him.

Why?
QUOTE

For example, on the Weather Channel this morning, some guy said it was snowing in Minnesota. Why do you believe him?


Because I have good reason to (he is an authority on the matter) and no reason not to (he has no incentive to lie.)

Also, because it doesn't really matter to me whether it is or is not snowing.

QUOTE
Why would you even believe a video of the so-called snow in Minnesota? That could be completely made up. Do you believe it is snowing in Minnesota without even being there?


It depends entirely on the situation. In the middle of summer, no, I would be highly skeptical, in winter, probably.

I can only make decisions based on the evidence I have.

QUOTE

Why do you believe the scientists when they say they have come up with a new breakthrough in some sort of technology?


Because, if I were so inclined, I could test it myself.

QUOTE
You haven't seen them doing this, you haven't seen their experiments.


But I could.

QUOTE
Hell, why should you even believe that England is an island? You haven't walked around the edges and discovered that you came right back to where you started.


I could fly there tommorow, if I wished.

QUOTE

You believe what other people say, even when the things they assert cannot be shown to you at the moment. So why not believe that God exists?


Because that cannot be shown to me, period. The claims you mentioned above can all be tested and verified. How do you verify the existence of God?

QUOTE

80% of the world believes in some way.


And?

QUOTE
They all have had personal experiences with God


Did you ask every one of them?

Can you prove that "all" had these experiences? Or are you attempting to deceive me?

QUOTE
that can be counted as evidence.


Evidence, but not good evidence.
Supernatural: Anything that is not governed by the laws of the universe.

Yes, it does include that ability.

God is not made of matter. He is not governed by the laws of this universe (ie, "if something does not consist of matter or energy does not exist").

We don't know why God has wants, but he has demonstrated his presence and wants.

Yes, God knows exactly what to do to fulfill his wants and does have the power to do it instantly. But He wants us to have free will to do His will or not.

God has simply shown that he wants us to follow Him.

How do you know the man is an authority on weather? He could be lying, just to protect his reputation. Maybe he forecasted that it would snow yesterday, and wants to keep his image clean.
And how does whether something "matters" affect its objective truth?

Could you test quantum physics? People know that they can't exactly do a backyard experiment on archaeology, atomic physics or molecular biology. That stuff is easy to make up.

You can verify the existence of God by simply looking for Him. In order, in justice, in feeling. Look inside your heart (ok, I admit I did that on purpose just to make this position look stupid :lol: )

People answer polls, people generalize, people study samples of people from regions. Is that enough? Do you believe that people answer truthfully on these surveys? You should if you want to be consistent with your "snow in Minnesota" example.

What constitutes "good evidence"?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 08:52 pm


Gotchya.

:lol:

It's a very easy way to feel intelligent.

That is, after all, what we're all looking for, right? An ego boost?
I certainly hope a good number of these folks are not looking to feel intelligent.

[Publius]

I certainly hope a good number of these folks are not looking to feel intelligent.

They try their best. And that's what really counts, right?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2006 09:37 pm


I certainly hope a good number of these folks are not looking to feel intelligent.

They try their best. And that's what really counts, right?
Not really.

I don't know jack about how computers work, you don't see me on computing message boards claiming to know how computer operating systems ought to work.

But hey, until they take over and Doom starts having people executed for expressing the wrong beliefs, it is a free country.

;)

[ichneumon]

we look at the world around us and see cause and effect. one thing causes another. this is indisputable. thus everything in the universe must be traced back to one single cause - the causeless cause, ie, the creator. this is God. you say "there was a Big Bang" - what caused that? what created the situation in which it could happen? have you ever experienced anything without a cause?


i'm playing with y'all - any grammar school buddhist could tear this apart in seconds.

[RedLenin]

God is not made of matter. He is not governed by the laws of this universe (ie, "if something does not consist of matter or energy does not exist").
What is God made out of? What substance exists besides matter? Can you demonstrate it? Can you show it to me?


We don't know why God has wants, but he has demonstrated his presence and wants.[
How? In what way? Can you demonstrate it?


But He wants us to have free will to do His will or not.
If God is omnitient, then he knew ahead of time whether or not everyone would believe in him and do his will. If he knew that not everyone would do his will, then why the hell did he create us in the first place? If non-believers go to hell, you are stuck with the absurd position that God created a large portion of humans just so that he could eternally fry them.


God has simply shown that he wants us to follow Him.
How has he shown this? Can you demonstate it?


What constitutes "good evidence"?
It can be objectively observed, tested, repeated, and verified.

To avoid all of these debates, let's look at this simply. In philosophical discussions, we have to define our terms. What happens when you try to define God? You may say he (apparently supposing it is a male) is omnitient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. Great. All that has been done is that you have listed attributes of him. You have not defined what he is. Let's take one example of an attribute. Omnibenevolence. Not lacking in benevolence. What is benevolence? It is a human idea that exists within our brains. No other animal has a concept of benevolence. So what you would be saying is that God does not lack in a human conception. An analysis of any attribute attributed to God, in the last analysis, proves to be a case of imposing human concepts to an imagined anthropormorphic entity.

But can God even be defined? If we give it attributes, such as those listed above, what are we really saying? We are saying that he is not lacking in knowledge, not lacking in power, and not lacking in benevolence. It would be the same as me trying to define some unknown thing by saying that it is not a chair, not a table, and not a couch. No one can define God in a legitimate way because there is no such thing as a "God".

[Publius]

Supernatural: Anything that is not governed by the laws of the universe.

Are supernatural beings governed by any laws at all?



God is not made of matter.

Then how does he "exist"?

How can you even apply an ontological category to him, as those are "laws of the Universe."

Clearly the statement "God exists" is thus confused because, by ascribing "existence" to God, you are applying the laws that govern the Universe.

Therefore, your God does not exist.


He is not governed by the laws of this universe (ie, "if something does not consist of matter or energy does not exist").

Therefore he doesn't exist, as the very statements regarding existence are based in the laws that govern the Universe.

"Nothingness" also isn't governed by any laws. Note the similarity.



We don't know why God has wants, but he has demonstrated his presence and wants.

Not to me he hasn't.



Yes, God knows exactly what to do to fulfill his wants and does have the power to do it instantly. But He wants us to have free will to do His will or not.

Why can't God give us the free will AND make sure we always do his will? As he's all powerful, clearing up the contradiction should be no problem at all.



God has simply shown that he wants us to follow Him.

Has he?



How do you know the man is an authority on weather?

Because he's a weatherman.

That's what he is.


He could be lying, just to protect his reputation.

He could be.

But I have no reason to believe is. Note the difference.


Maybe he forecasted that it would snow yesterday, and wants to keep his image clean.

Maybe. But maybe bad weathermen don't stay weathermen for long.



And how does whether something "matters" affect its objective truth?

It doesn't. But that's not the point.



Could you test quantum physics?

Yes.


People know that they can't exactly do a backyard experiment on archaeology, atomic physics or molecular biology. That stuff is easy to make up.

No it isn't.

It has to published in journals where other people, people who can verify it, can read it.



You can verify the existence of God by simply looking for Him.

No I can't.

I've already tried, no dice.


In order, in justice, in feeling. Look inside your heart (ok, I admit I did that on purpose just to make this position look stupid :lol: )

I have no heart.



People answer polls, people generalize, people study samples of people from regions.

People do. You didn't.


Is that enough?

No.


Do you believe that people answer truthfully on these surveys?

Most of the time, yes.


You should if you want to be consistent with your "snow in Minnesota" example.

I think that the people answering the questions really believe they have experienced God.

But as we know, personal preference has no effect on objective truth.



What constitutes "good evidence"?

Evidence good enough to convince me.

[RevMARKSman]

Evidence good enough to convince me.

I thought we were trying to find objective truth here.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 10:08 pm



I thought we were trying to find objective truth here.

They're one in the same.

[chimx]

it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of god. people have tried and failed for thousands of years. i don't see how a handful of youngsters on the internet would be any different.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by Publius+December 12, 2006 07:27 pm--> (Publius @ December 12, 2006 07:27 pm)
[email protected] 12, 2006 10:08 pm



I thought we were trying to find objective truth here.

They're one in the same. [/b]
So you're saying objective truth is determined by subjective value judgments about whether evidence is "good enough"?

[Publius]

So you're saying objective truth is determined by subjective value judgments about whether evidence is "good enough"?

No, I'm saying that the evidence required to convince me is based on objective truths which can be experimentally verified.

No subjective value judgment value on my part is required, facts are facts, evidence is evidence.

[RevMARKSman]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2006 10:53 pm


So you're saying objective truth is determined by subjective value judgments about whether evidence is "good enough"?

No, I'm saying that the evidence required to convince me is based on objective truths which can be experimentally verified.

No subjective value judgment value on my part is required, facts are facts, evidence is evidence.
Good.

Let's move on to another issue.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 03:53 am


So you're saying objective truth is determined by subjective value judgments about whether evidence is "good enough"?

No, I'm saying that the evidence required to convince me is based on objective truths which can be experimentally verified.

No subjective value judgment value on my part is required, facts are facts, evidence is evidence.
But even you have a subjective perception of the world and would view evidence that ran counter to your opinion with suspicion.

Add to that the fact that even objective evidence is derived through experimentation by subjective, biased human beings (lies, damned lies and statistics) and it becomes clear that "truth" is, at best, partially subjective.

[Publius]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2006 11:26 am



Good.

Let's move on to another issue.

Yes, let's, as I did rather handily take that one.


But even you have a subjective perception of the world

No, no perceptions are objective, my interpretations of them are subjective.


and would view evidence that ran counter to your opinion with suspicion.

Not if were of a scientific mind, which I think that I am. I don't gather evidence to form around my opinion, I opinions to form around my evidence.



Add to that the fact that even objective evidence is derived through experimentation by subjective, biased human beings (lies, damned lies and statistics) and it becomes clear that "truth" is, at best, partially subjective.

Which, even if true, still does nothing to add to the claim "God exists" and, in fact, goes against it, because that 'truth' is now, by definition, at least partially subjective.

"Science sucks, therefore God exists" is really pretty common argument, but it's still a very bad one.

Even if science were completely invalid as a mode of inquiry (which it of course isn't), you still would have done nothing to prove God.

Furtheremore, when you're in the hospital having tests done or receiving treatment, you aren't likely to refuse because they are based on "partially subjective" science, right?

"I won't accept that medication because, conceivably, at some point in the process, some amount of personal bias entered in. Also, God exists."

So while your argument may be appealing from a purely theoretical standpoint (it isn't, by the way), as a practical matter, it's entirely absurd, therefore, I see no problem with dispensing of it entirely.

[t_wolves_fan]

But even you have a subjective perception of the world

No, no perceptions are objective, my interpretations of them are subjective.

Semantics, the same thing really. Unless you believe William Blake I guess.



and would view evidence that ran counter to your opinion with suspicion.

Not if were of a scientific mind, which I think that I am. I don't gather evidence to form around my opinion, I opinions to form around my evidence.

You may be better at it than others, but you'll still have a subjective opinion of even the most objective research. It's impossible not to and arrogant to think otherwise, unless you really believe you're an emotion-free robot.


Which, even if true,

It is.


still does nothing to add to the claim "God exists" and, in fact, goes against it, because that 'truth' is now, by definition, at least partially subjective.

The claim "God exists" will only be supported if you're inclined to believe. Why people insist on demanding "proof" for people's religious beliefs is beyond me. It's a pointless excercise done mostly to make the questioner feel superior about him or herself.


"Science sucks, therefore God exists" is really pretty common argument, but it's still a very bad one.

I agree but I don't understand why people feel the need to spend hours worrying about it.

If you don't like Church, don't go.


Even if science were completely invalid as a mode of inquiry (which it of course isn't), you still would have done nothing to prove God.

Furtheremore, when you're in the hospital having tests done or receiving treatment, you aren't likely to refuse because they are based on "partially subjective" science, right?

I'll cut it off here because you seem to think I'm interested in engaging you in this debate over whether or not God exists and whether God's existence has any proof or supporting evidence. My answers to those questions in order are yes and, as far as I'm concerned, yes with the caveat that I know other people don't buy it and I do not care.

I am no fundamentalist and frankly reject organized religion. You'd be better off arguing with a real fundy.

[Publius]

Semantics, the same thing really. Unless you believe William Blake I guess.

It's not semantics, it matters very much.

If your perceptions themselves are flawed, truth of any kind is necessarily impossible.

If it's just your interpretation, that could possibly change.



You may be better at it than others, but you'll still have a subjective opinion of even the most objective research. It's impossible not to and arrogant to think otherwise, unless you really believe you're an emotion-free robot.

Well, I am pretty unemotional, but it's a non-issue. I don't have an emotional issue in my atheism, aside from my arrogance, which isn't really an issue, as I could just be an arrogant Christian; God knows there are already plenty of those.



The claim "God exists" will only be supported if you're inclined to believe.

Well, that pretty much seals the deal, doesn't it?


Why people insist on demanding "proof" for people's religious beliefs is beyond me. It's a pointless excercise done mostly to make the questioner feel superior about him or herself.

I'm not doubting that one bit; though I would also add that religious belief is a pointless excercise done mostly to make the practitioner feel good about him or herself.

Both points are, of course, true, but are, also, not really important.



I agree but I don't understand why people feel the need to spend hours worrying about it.

If you don't like Church, don't go.

Some people feel the need to understand things. I'm not so much interested in religion but with why people are religious, or why people believe things without a good reason. I think that's an important topic.



I'll cut it off here because you seem to think I'm interested in engaging you in this debate over whether or not God exists and whether God's existence has any proof or supporting evidence. My answers to those questions in order are yes and, as far as I'm concerned, yes with the caveat that I know other people don't buy it and I do not care.

Oh, I know that you aren't interested in discussing it. Frankly, I don't blame you or even really have any concern. People of your persuasion aren't who I'm "against", as it were.



I am no fundamentalist and frankly reject organized religion. You'd be better off arguing with a real fundy.

No, in that case, I would be beter of arguing with a brick wall, because in that case, at least some of what I say could echo back.

But I digress.

[Phalanx]

God doesn't exist simply because:

There are thousands of religions in the world. Many proclaim to be the 'one path to a life/afterlife of salvation and oneness with (fill in deity). Many have one god, many gods, or even no god. It's impossible for one group out of all these thousands to be right. So the answer? They're all wrong!

[t_wolves_fan]

It's not semantics, it matters very much.

If your perceptions themselves are flawed, truth of any kind is necessarily impossible.

If it's just your interpretation, that could possibly change.

Your perception and your interpretation are interrelated. One may change but there's no guarantee it will change to be "right". What is "right" is ultimately determined by the individual.




Well, I am pretty unemotional, but it's a non-issue. I don't have an emotional issue in my atheism, aside from my arrogance, which isn't really an issue, as I could just be an arrogant Christian; God knows there are already plenty of those.

Well right: when it comes to knowing the "truth" about these questions, you're just as ignorant and arrogant as they are. You think you know, or at least have a good idea, even though you could not possibly know. And you're so convinced you're right that you spend time arguing with people to persuade them to believe as you do.

Stand in a park proclaiming your opinions on a sandwich board and over a loudspeaker and you'd be exactly the same thing regardless of what your opinion is.

It's the human condition, really. I try to avoid it by believing what I do and generally keeping it to myself. When it's brought up in conversation, I never try to convince people that they're wrong. It's a pointless and pompous endeavor.




Why people insist on demanding "proof" for people's religious beliefs is beyond me. It's a pointless excercise done mostly to make the questioner feel superior about him or herself.

I'm not doubting that one bit; though I would also add that religious belief is a pointless excercise done mostly to make the practitioner feel good about him or herself.

There's the sign of incredible arrogance: You cannot possibly accept a point without getting in a dig at the other side.

Of course religion makes people feel good about themselves. So what? Why is that your concern?

It isn't.




Some people feel the need to understand things. I'm not so much interested in religion but with why people are religious, or why people believe things without a good reason. I think that's an important topic.

Fair enough but I bet you bring the same baggage to this endeavor as LSD: to you, there is no "good reason" for believing in religion, and so based on this bias you will immediately dismiss any reason that someone gives that is "good" to them.

They'll say it gives them comfort, or makes them feel at peace, or makes them feel strong, or whatever other reason, and you'll dismiss those arguments and simply demand proof that God exists. Why can't people have their own arguments that are good enough for them? But your arrogance creeps up again. Essentially, you've already determined what a "good argument" is, setting the terms of the debate before it can even begin. I believe that's a logical fallacy of some kind.

The point is, you can't figure out why people believe if you've rejected their arguments in advance.

[Publius]

Your perception and your interpretation are interrelated.

But they are not the same, which makes your label of 'semantics' incorrect.



Well right: when it comes to knowing the "truth" about these questions, you're just as ignorant and arrogant as they are.

Arrogant, yes. Ignorant, not so much.


You think you know, or at least have a good idea, even though you could not possibly know.

Possibly know what? The the Christian conception of God is littered with inherent nonsense and contradiction?

It's self-obvious.

Now I can't possibly know that 'some God' doesn't exist, or something of that nature. But on some topics, I'm on solid ground.



And you're so convinced you're right that you spend time arguing with people to persuade them to believe as you do.

Well, that would be the point of it, yes.

Even though I'm pretty cynical and fatalistic, I'm still not as bad as thinking "Oh, let the dumbasses believe the planet sits on the back of a giant turtle."

Don't even try to tell me I'm 'just as ignorant as they are' when I state that it actually floats in space.

It's not going to work and it's a bullshit argument (and you know it.)



Stand in a park proclaiming your opinions on a sandwich board and over a loudspeaker and you'd be exactly the same thing regardless of what your opinion is.

There's a reason you don't see rational people doing that.



It's the human condition, really. I try to avoid it by believing what I do and generally keeping it to myself. When it's brought up in conversation, I never try to convince people that they're wrong. It's a pointless and pompous endeavor.

Yes, because accepting the fact that your human compatriots are flaming idiots who would deny that a rock hit them in the face if their holy book told them it didn't is an imminently more sensible and less pointless position to take up.



There's the sign of incredible arrogance: You cannot possibly accept a point without getting in a dig at the other side.

I've never claimed that I was anything but arrogant. I have a good enough self-conception to realize that, and actually, I quite enjoy it. It's an instant ego boost to think you're better than everyone else.

That being said, I draw parallels as I see them. I see no reason to be 'humble' about it, least of all on the Revolutionary Left Internet Forums.



Of course religion makes people feel good about themselves. So what? Why is that your concern?

It isn't.

I can be concerned about with whatever I want to be concerned about, quite frankly.

If molesting children makes someone feel good about themselves, I'm hardly obliged to 'go along to get along', am I?

Face it: religion, for some people, is not a little secluded part of the brain where deer and rabbits prance about in an idyllic field.

For some people, religion is a perverted excuse to commit violent atrocities.

To everyone else, it's an amusing personality trait, somewhat like the people who remain convinced that Elvis is still "really alive."



Fair enough but I bet you bring the same baggage to this endeavor as LSD: to you, there is no "good reason" for believing in religion, and so based on this bias you will immediately dismiss any reason that someone gives that is "good" to them.

I'll immediately dismiss it if, in actuality, it isn't a good reason.

There's really a sharp distinction between people wanting to believe in some kind of 'higher power' and the truth value of the claim 'God exists.'



They'll say it gives them comfort, or makes them feel at peace, or makes them feel strong, or whatever other reason, and you'll dismiss those arguments and simply demand proof that God exists. Why can't people have their own arguments that are good enough for them?

Because to anyone with the intelligence of a 3rd grader or better can see those are terrible 'arguments' and that simply wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.

I can hardly prevent people from accepting things that even they, when pressed, admit are stupid, but I don't have to tacitly accept it and I certainly don't have to respect it. In fact, when asked for my opinion, and for my beliefs (which are, of course, as good as theirs, right?), I'll respond that said people are "fucking stupid."



But your arrogance creeps up again.

It doesn't creep up, it's right in the forefront.


Essentially, you've already determined what a "good argument" is, setting the terms of the debate before it can even begin. I believe that's a logical fallacy of some kind.

It's not a logical fallacy to ignore logically fallacious arguments.

A good argument, in terms logic, is one that does not contradict and flows coherently from one point to another.

It doesn't take a philosopher to see that "I want to X exist" therefore "X exists" is not a good argument.

Now you can bend and dodge and draw insipid equivilencies all you like, but nothing is going to change the immutable fact that the above argument is wrong.

You can look over any book you logic you want, and no where in it will you see "Logic Fallacy: discounting shitty arguments out of hand."

I see what you're trying to do here, and I think I know why you're doing it: you're smart enough to realize good, logical reasons for believing in God don't actually exist, so you, in order to keep belief, necessarily try to draw 'God claims' away from rigorous debate and into a field of nebulous biases and opinions. It's a nice tactic, but again, it doesn't amount to hill of beans.

God still doesn't exist, and no matter how many times you proclaim 'live and let live', he still won't exist.

Note, I'm not 'arguing' that God doesn't exist, I'm just stating the simple fact. He hasn't been demonstrated to exist. This is incontrovertible.


The point is, you can't figure out why people believe if you've rejected their arguments in advance.

What am I to do, accept them in advance?

[Qwerty Dvorak]

Two cappies arguing, where's the fucking popcorn??

[t_wolves_fan]

Well right: when it comes to knowing the "truth" about these questions, you're just as ignorant and arrogant as they are.

Arrogant, yes. Ignorant, not so much.

No, just as ignorant as they and everyone else including me: you do not know where we came from nor why we are here. Your theories are just as much a shot in the dark as anyone else's.



And you're so convinced you're right that you spend time arguing with people to persuade them to believe as you do.

Well, that would be the point of it, yes.

Even though I'm pretty cynical and fatalistic, I'm still not as bad as thinking "Oh, let the dumbasses believe the planet sits on the back of a giant turtle."

Don't even try to tell me I'm 'just as ignorant as they are' when I state that it actually floats in space.

It's not going to work and it's a bullshit argument (and you know it.)

I'm not talking physics or astronomy here, I'm talking about the question of "why".

And why not let the dumbasses think the planet sits on the back of a giant turtle? Who gives a shit what they think about it?



Stand in a park proclaiming your opinions on a sandwich board and over a loudspeaker and you'd be exactly the same thing regardless of what your opinion is.

There's a reason you don't see rational people doing that.

Actually I've seen atheists in parks, but yes, it is more rational to confine your arguments to the web instead of making an ass of yourself in a park. But your rational decision to avoid embarassing yourself lends no credence to any arguments you may have on the "why" question.



It's the human condition, really. I try to avoid it by believing what I do and generally keeping it to myself. When it's brought up in conversation, I never try to convince people that they're wrong. It's a pointless and pompous endeavor.

Yes, because accepting the fact that your human compatriots are flaming idiots who would deny that a rock hit them in the face if their holy book told them it didn't is an imminently more sensible and less pointless position to take up.

Exactly. Aside from the few moments a week I waste on this site, I do not spend countless hours worrying about what people think or why. I do not care what people believe or why nor do I care to do anything about it. I only care when their arguments are being used in a policy debate that has some effect on me. Otherwise, they are free to sit in their back yard and chant at the moon all they want.




It's an instant ego boost to think you're better than everyone else.

Well, I'd be a flaming hypocrite if I said I didn't agree. :lol:




Of course religion makes people feel good about themselves. So what? Why is that your concern?

It isn't.

If molesting children makes someone feel good about themselves, I'm hardly obliged to 'go along to get along', am I?

We all know the definition of a strawman, ace. No need to illustrate it so obviously. Remember: what people believe = doesn't affect other's rights; what people do to other people = affects other's rights.

You don't really believe you have some kind of right or entitlement to never be offended, do you?


Face it: religion, for some people, is not a little secluded part of the brain where deer and rabbits prance about in an idyllic field.

For some people, religion is a perverted excuse to commit violent atrocities.

Right, when it's an action it deserves attention. Otherwise it's an opinion and has to be left alone.



They'll say it gives them comfort, or makes them feel at peace, or makes them feel strong, or whatever other reason, and you'll dismiss those arguments and simply demand proof that God exists. Why can't people have their own arguments that are good enough for them?

Because to anyone with the intelligence of a 3rd grader or better can see those are terrible 'arguments' and that simply wanting something to be true doesn't make it true.

I can hardly prevent people from accepting things that even they, when pressed, admit are stupid, but I don't have to tacitly accept it and I certainly don't have to respect it. In fact, when asked for my opinion, and for my beliefs (which are, of course, as good as theirs, right?), I'll respond that said people are "fucking stupid."


Thanks for proving my point.

Anyway, you've become tiresome.

[Publius]

Anyway, you've become tiresome.

That's just your opinion.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2006 04:08 am

Anyway, you've become tiresome.

That's just your opinion.
No, you were actually making me physically tired.

:P