The God Debate

stereoroid

Anyone else heading to this debate? (Theatre M, Arts, 7PM Wed)?

I'm just wondering how civilised it's going to be. The co-president of the US Freedom From Religion Foundation will be there, and other atheists and clergy. This is my first UCD debate, and (to me) a kind of litmus test of how liberal UCD and its students really are.

I'm half-expecting some evangelist from the peanut gallery to harangue the speakers with random bible quotes - as if that's what it takes to turn an atheist in to a believer in their particular religion. Yeah, like that's going to work on "professional atheists" like FFRW & Oxford philosophers... but it might be entertaining as long as they keep it short. I think I have some elderly tomatoes in the fridge...

Le Rack

might actually go...I'm a member in the irish skeptics congress, and at the european congress recently there was a physiscist from hawaii who says he has used the laws of physics to prove that god does not exist so the debate may be interesting.

The physicist btw was Vic Stenger and the title, God: The Failed Hypothesis

fillefatale

I was going to go, but the Young Greens meeting is on at 6.30pm.. everything seems to be on either a Wednesday or Thursday

LAUNWU

stereoroid wrote:

Anyone else heading to this debate? (Theatre M, Arts, 7PM Wed)?

I'm just wondering how civilised it's going to be. The co-president of the US Freedom From Religion Foundation will be there, and other atheists and clergy. This is my first UCD debate, and (to me) a kind of litmus test of how liberal UCD and its students really are.

I'm half-expecting some evangelist from the peanut gallery to harangue the speakers with random bible quotes - as if that's what it takes to turn an atheist in to a believer in their particular religion. Yeah, like that's going to work on "professional atheists" like FFRW & Oxford philosophers... but it might be entertaining as long as they keep it short. I think I have some elderly tomatoes in the fridge...

In my eyes, there is no debate...

stereoroid

LAUNWU wrote:

In my eyes, there is no debate...

Ditto... or, to put it another way, I'm not expecting to hear anything genuinely new there. The pleasure, hopefully, will be in hearing good public speakers hold a civilized debate, and get people thinking.

Spectator#1

I think it's a stupid debate. You can't prove the inexistence of anything with science, or anything else for that matter. It won't be a nice intelligent debate because it's not an intelligent debate. People who believe in God believe in God, people who don't, don't.

In fairness, what do you expect from the L&H these days? 'The God Debate', 'the Northern Ireland Debate', 'the Death Penalty debate'. There's nothing debate-like about them, even the definitive way they're named suggest that it's going to be nothing more than a live rehashing of the usual sides as every other time that 'debate' happens, it's pandering to people's preconceptions.

I realise they're just for a bit of fun, but I think they should just have comedy debates instead, it makes a mockery out of serious issues and they love to boast about how they provide a forum for current affairs debates when they're actually stultifying the ignorance about those issues by presenting it as two-sided. I guarantee you now, loads of people will leave there tomorrow laughing at how science made a show of all the crackpots who still believe in God and it won't encourage them to think for two seconds about what a stupid debate it is to have in the first place, or that people who believe in God actually believe in God for good reasons DESPITE the fact that science can't tell them anything about it either way.

Before people start calling me a God freak, I'm actually not religious at all. I just can't stand ignorant people who read half of the Blind Watchmaker or the God Delusion and think they know what they're talking about.

Wow, I look angry when I read that over again, I'm actually smiling here writing it, **** it...

Dave!

I'll probably go... not too keen to hang around for 3 hours though Maybe I'll read, or something.......

The_Minister

stereoroid wrote:

I'm half-expecting some evangelist from the peanut gallery to harangue the speakers with random bible quotes -

I've always found the evangelicals to be nice, quiet and polite at these things.

Much love to Spectator 1.

Dave!

Well there wasn't anything new there

delta_bravo

DaveMcG wrote:

Well there wasn't anything new there

In fairness tho, did you expect there to be? You either believe or you dont, a single debate shouldnt simply sway your belief( or lack of it)

stereoroid

DaveMcG wrote:

Well there wasn't anything new there

Well, that bit about HIV being created in a lab by evil scientists was new to me... as was the position put forward by that girl in black, who said she was an atheist, but believed there was a "force" making it right and natural for people to have "faith". Hmmm. :rolleyes:

Of course, I got the idea to speak... on the way home. I would have had a few words to say about how Catholicism is so prevalent here in Ireland that people think it's normal, and think the whole world thinks like that. It's like water is to fish - you're surrounded by it, suffused in it, breathing it in. Oh, and a reference to Karl Marx, on how the "opium" of religion is used by governments - yes, particularly the Irish government - to keep people "sedated" and under control. It would have fit right in, considering the subject of next week's debate: Communism.

Prof. Swinburne was a huge disappointment... by 4-5 seconds in to both his speeches, he had assumed his God exists, and used that "fact" as the foundation of all his other arguments, including the existence of said God. And they gave him an award? Well, I suppose the James Joyce award was a good fit: he was about as coherent as Finnegan's Wake.

LAUNWU

Spectator#1 wrote:

I think it's a stupid debate. You can't prove the inexistence of anything with science, or anything else for that matter. It won't be a nice intelligent debate because it's not an intelligent debate. People who believe in God believe in God, people who don't, don't.

Before people start calling me a God freak, I'm actually not religious at all. I just can't stand ignorant people who read half of the Blind Watchmaker or the God Delusion and think they know what they're talking about.

Wow, I look angry when I read that over again, I'm actually smiling here writing it, **** it...

uhuh......

i think richard dawkins is as bad as any fundamentalist. the point is that the idea of what the bible says is insane. its a big story. its NOT as simple as some ppl believe some dont, that is simply the answer given by ppl who are too bored with the argument to care.god doesnt exist its quite simple. a figment of the imagination.

i do however maintain that santa exists and if anyone wants to argue about it, my parents told me, OK?

Mr.Nice Guy

LAUNWU wrote:

the point is that the idea of what the bible says is insane.

Yeah all that stuff about loving people and living a good life. Down with this sort of thing!

LAUNWU wrote:

its NOT as simple as some ppl believe some dont, that is simply the answer given by ppl who are too bored with the argument to care.god doesnt exist its quite simple. a figment of the imagination.

So according to you it's not as simple as "some believe, some don't", it's simply..."he doesn't"? Well thanks for clearing that up! Care to provide proof of God's non-existence though? If it's not too much trouble...

I love how those of us like myself who believe in God are mocked by pompous, pretentious types like you who scoff at us for believing a "story" and "figments of the imagination" etc. when all science has to offer people like you is some STORY about the universe being created by a BANG which occurred - from nothingness. Wow. Love to see an Al-Qaeda bomber giving that as his defense in court. Wonder how far he'd get?

Court: What caused the bang?

Bomber: It came from nothing alright. Just leave me alone.

Hmm OK. Until you can prove that the existence of God is a falsehood ease off on the arrogant condescending attitude.

Spectator#1

LAUNWU wrote:

uhuh......i think richard dawkins is as bad as any fundamentalist. the point is that the idea of what the bible says is insane. its a big story.

Yes, it is, what's your point?

In fact, a lot of the tales from the Bible are actually rehashed myths from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The point is, they're made transparent for new insights into human nature, you don't have to take everything written in the Bible as literal you know. If you're looking to say belief in the existence of God is stupid because the Bible is 'a big story' you're the one that needs a bit of work.

its NOT as simple as some ppl believe some dont, that is simply the answer given by ppl who are too bored with the argument to care.god doesnt exist its quite simple. a figment of the imagination.

Yawn.

I'm afraid that that's as simple as you can make it. Some people believe and some people don't. It doesn't make any difference in the long run provided you're a sensible, ethical person. You can't get any simpler without stating beliefs or dogmas pertaining to your own belief system.

FACT: Some people believe some people don't.
NOT FACT: God is a figment of the imagination.
NOT FACT: God is not a figment of the imagination.
FACT: Some people believe, some people don't.

If you're looking for proof of the existence of God you're already on the wrong track in my book. It's not about proof. And you might believe God is a figment of the imagination, fine, but you can't expect other people to agree with you all the time, because then you're as bad as any other fundamentalist. This, you seem to agree with from what you said about Dawkins.

Spectator#1

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Until you can prove that the existence of God is a falsehood ease off on the arrogant condescending attitude.

I think the point is that this whole 'prove' the existence/inexistence of God is a category mistake. It's just a stupid argument. Science explains a lot of things about the world quite adequately, but it just doesn't, and can never apply to the experience of transcendence, which is a strictly human experience, in the same way there's no science to tell you how much you love your parents.

Let 'God' stand for everything in the universe and you stand for everything mankind knows about the universe. Let 'God' stand for eternity while you stand for at best 100 or so years on the earth. That's what 'God' is. This idea of an omnipotent, all-knowing, friendly MAN can just be the reification of the humbling experience of being an inconsequential human being in a world that you'll never really understand. You don't have to believe in it, just understand the experience that motivates it, which isn't that hard, you're not animals. You do realise, whether you want to or not that there's an extra level of existence there to you than to your pet fish or cat that science needn't and can't get near.

Just be humble and you'll be grand. You don't have to believe in a friendly man in the sky. That's what's so ****ing stupid about the arrogant, rhetorical pratishness of Dawkins, he's not a humble man at all, he's an ignorant ignorant human being.

The_Minister

In the beginning, there was nothing, ....which exploded. - Terry Pratchett

Spectator#1

A great man. I've been reading a good bit of him lately! I love Douglas Adams too, I think he's a bit better if I'm really honest. He does a really funny thing about some scientists presenting God with a load of arguments for his inexistence and so he goes, 'oh!' and disappears in a puff of logic, hilarious, it makes the whole arguments for and against look so silly, and he was an atheist too!

We're all in this life lark together lads. Just be nice to each other and God needn't come into it!

LAUNWU

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Yeah all that stuff about loving people and living a good life. Down with this sort of thing!



So according to you it's not as simple as "some believe, some don't", it's simply..."he doesn't"? Well thanks for clearing that up! Care to provide proof of God's non-existence though? If it's not too much trouble...

I love how those of us like myself who believe in God are mocked by pompous, pretentious types like you who scoff at us for believing a "story" and "figments of the imagination" etc. when all science has to offer people like you is some STORY about the universe being created by a BANG which occurred - from nothingness. Wow. Love to see an Al-Qaeda bomber giving that as his defense in court. Wonder how far he'd get?

Court: What caused the bang?

Bomber: It came from nothing alright. Just leave me alone.

Hmm OK. Until you can prove that the existence of God is a falsehood ease off on the arrogant condescending attitude.

by saying the bible injects principles into our lives i'm sure you will offend many people. I have priniciples which I believe are well above anything the bible hands out. i have MY OWN principles. Which funnily enough are EXTREMELY humane.

i dont need to prove anything. prove santa doesnt exist, its a ****ing story for gods sake.

anyway on another note christianity today is FAR from what anything the bible states.

LAUNWU

Spectator#1 wrote:

Yes, it is, what's your point?

In fact, a lot of the tales from the Bible are actually rehashed myths from Mesopotamia and Egypt. The point is, they're made transparent for new insights into human nature, you don't have to take everything written in the Bible as literal you know. If you're looking to say belief in the existence of God is stupid because the Bible is 'a big story' you're the one that needs a bit of work.



Yawn.

I'm afraid that that's as simple as you can make it. Some people believe and some people don't. It doesn't make any difference in the long run provided you're a sensible, ethical person. You can't get any simpler without stating beliefs or dogmas pertaining to your own belief system.

FACT: Some people believe some people don't.
NOT FACT: God is a figment of the imagination.
NOT FACT: God is not a figment of the imagination.
FACT: Some people believe, some people don't.

If you're looking for proof of the existence of God you're already on the wrong track in my book. It's not about proof. And you might believe God is a figment of the imagination, fine, but you can't expect other people to agree with you all the time, because then you're as bad as any other fundamentalist. This, you seem to agree with from what you said about Dawkins.

im not looking for proof of the non-existance of god, i dont need it that is my point. i dont have time for people like you who consider not that god does or does not exist, but that there is no factual answer. human intuition tells me everything i need to know about how to lead my life, it also tells me what exists and what doesnt.

why the **** should i believe what my eyes tell me?

Spectator#1

anyway on another note christianity today is FAR from what anything the bible states.

You might even say it's not 'Christianity' any more in that case.

Your principles are better than the Bible's? I wouldn't think so if you make a point of picking fights with people for their beliefs, provided those beliefs are completely harmless, or even encourage them to do some good in the world.

Cop on. There's a big difference between Santa and Christianity, don't be so autistic.

Spectator#1

LAUNWU wrote:

im not looking for proof of the non-existance of god, i dont need it that is my point.

Well then you're an ignorant person.

Goodbye, there's no point in discussing anything with you anymore.

And here, ladies and gentlemen, is why the 'God Debate' is a waste of time.

Mr.Nice Guy

LAUNWU wrote:

by saying the bible injects principles into our lives i'm sure you will offend many people.

How would I offend people by saying that? I'm sure even the msot ardent atheist would acknowledge that the Bible injects principles into people's lives.

LAUWU wrote:

I have priniciples which I believe are well above anything the bible hands out. i have MY OWN principles. Which funnily enough are EXTREMELY humane.

Good for you.

LAUWU wrote:

i dont need to prove anything.

Is this one of your principles? Usually when msot people make definitive statements like you did then they actually make the effort to back it up with some sort of coherent argument. I suspect your problem is that you can't.

LAUNWU wrote:

prove santa doesnt exist, its a ****ing story for gods sake.

OK then, no one comes into my house on Christmas Eve and drops off presents. There I've proved Santa doesn't exist. Now you go. Prove God doesn't exist.

The belief in a divine being is not a ****ing story but rather a position that is held by billions worldwise, including many well known scientists.

LAUNWU wrote:

anyway on another note christianity today is FAR from what anything the bible states.

Not really. Its core principles remain strong to this day. You're talking out of your arse really, aren't you? I can respect those atheists who put forth their views in a fair and respectable manner but your comments are patronising as well as insulting.

Spectator#1 wrote:

Science explains a lot of things about the world quite adequately, but it just doesn't, and can never apply to the experience of transcendence, which is a strictly human experience, in the same way there's no science to tell you how much you love your parents.

Well said, man.

LAUNWU

Spectator#1 wrote:

You might even say it's not 'Christianity' any more in that case.

Your principles are better than the Bible's? I wouldn't think so if you make a point of picking fights with people for their beliefs, provided those beliefs are completely harmless, or even encourage them to do some good in the world.

Cop on. There's a big difference between Santa and Christianity, don't be so autistic.

only because this argument has been dragged on, analysed and ****ing fought about so much. there is a very simple answer, give up your beliefs.

when i say "better" i mean plausable. my principles are realistic, human, the bibles are not.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=adf_1190731634

watch and learn, i give up byeeeeee

Mr.Nice Guy

LAUNWU wrote:

when i say "better" i mean plausable. my principles are realistic, human, the bibles are not.

Who wrote the Bible? I thought it was humans. Don't tell me the Bible came out of nothingness too?

Pugwash

one man's ignorance is another man's faith

tbh, if you're going to the God debate looking for "the answer" you may well be barking up the wrong tree.

It is however, an entertaining and sometimes thought provoking debate to witness. It tells you a lot about human conviction and the pursuit of what some would see as knowledge and others would see as enlightenment.

Anyway, to refer to the cliche, it's college. Just go, hear the hacks chatter, hit a bong and jam some floyd after.

lizzyvera

The motion was "...that it is irrational to believe in God" not that God doesn't exist, which is a different debate and a bit beyond us...

Is there enough evidence to support the existance of God for it to be rational to dedicate your life to him and believe everything the Bible says or would it be better to use your own judgement on moral issues?

lizzyvera

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

when all science has to offer people like you is some STORY about the universe being created by a BANG which occurred - from nothingness. Wow. Love to see an Al-Qaeda bomber giving that as his defense in court. Wonder how far he'd get?

The things is, scientists don't really "believe in" things in the same way that religious people do because a scientist will change his or her views when a more convincing argument is made or when the most accurate current theory is modified or disproved. Religious people "believe" in almost the opposite way, they dig their heels in further the more the evidence mounts against their beliefs. In other words, scientists believe because of the evidence whereas religious people believe despite the evidence.

A good scientist has no problem saying "I was wrong" or simply "I don't know, maybe we will know some day".

Also, the scientific method works and does eventually get things right. There are millions of examples of this. Rigorous testing and experiments and reevaluating data means that sometimes theories do change or become discredited but that is part of the system, and doesn't mean that it isn't reliable.

I don't understand your argument about the Al Qaeda bomber... It works against you. He believed that he was doing God's work and was so blinded by his religious faith that he couldn't be rational about the issue. Just like when Catholics block civil rights for homosexuals and certain Muslim states stone people to death for adultery.
If you allow respect one person's irrational beliefs then you are condoning all those things. You can't say your Christianity is any more valid or grounded in logical thinking than a mad terrorist's belief that he's doing God's work.

carlowboy

lizzyvera wrote:

The motion was "...that it is irrational to believe in God" not that God doesn't exist, which is a different debate and a bit beyond us...

Is there enough evidence to support the existance of God for it to be rational to dedicate your life to him and believe everything the Bible says or would it be better to use your own judgement on moral issues?

I personally think it's very rational for people to believe in God tbh.

Sangre

Le Rack wrote:

might actually go...I'm a member in the irish skeptics congress, and at the european congress recently there was a physiscist from hawaii who says he has used the laws of physics to prove that god does not exist so the debate may be interesting.

Well, he doesn't sound like a very good physicist. Firstly, how do you define 'God' and then go about applying falsifiable tests to support the hypothesis it doesn't exist? Secondly how do you prove a negative? How can you prove something doesn't exist? I'd life to see him disprove the invisible pink unicorn standing beside me.

mrniceguy wrote:

How would I offend people by saying that? I'm sure even the msot ardent atheist would acknowledge that the Bible injects principles into people's lives.

Yes, it injects man made principles.

estebancambias

****ing liberals, that is why I refuse to attend UCD.

Spectator#1

haha