The God Debate

stereoroid

estebancambias wrote:

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

And other universities are less liberal? A lot of young people in the same place, enjoying their first taste of freedom from school uniforms and "helicopter parents"... a whole lot of thinking going on. As I see it, to find a really "illiberal" university you'd need to go to e.g. North Korea, or one of those fundamentalist Christian institutions in West Virginia or Alabama... :eek:

As it turned out, UCD isn't that liberal after all: the motion was defeated by a "noise" vote, and so a (self-selected) majority of kids at UCD think that believing in God is rational. Well, assuming I survive my first year, I think UCD could use a Humanist Society.

Fluther

estebancambias wrote:

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

Wow...thats so mature!

Tbh i think everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the issue. However, far too often i find overly zealous people refuse to accept people who don't believe or agree with them...Whereas people who don't believe tend to be (though this certainly is not always true) far more accepting of those who believe.

What i don't understand about the whole religion debate is why christians, muslisms etc treat gay people so badly...If you are really going to be forgiving and believe in the golden rule of "do onto others as you would have done onto you", how can you reject poeple because of their sexual orientation?

Dave!

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

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.

Santa knows if you've been bad or good, so maybe he chose not to give you presents.

Even if you put video cameras in everybody's houses in the world, you can only prove that he doesn't leave presents there. Prove he doesn't exist.

Scientists can show that the Bible is full of impossible events and miracles, but nobody can prove that god doesn't exist, no more than they can prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

stereoroid

DaveMcG wrote:

Scientists can show that the Bible is full of impossible events and miracles, but nobody can prove that god doesn't exist, no more than they can prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

Then I suppose it's a good thing that I don't need to do that, then. It's a basic logical problem, considering the size of this universe. One of the speakers on Wednesday had a go, and made a fair logical case, but he's rare in that regard, and I don't think it's a real problem if you can't disprove any particular god or gods.

The following may offend some of you: if it does, I hope you will stop and ask yourself: why are you offended? I don't mean it to offend, it's a simple statement of how I look at this "god problem".

You want me to change my life around, turn my critical faculties off, and adopt the religion you happen to be be burdened with? Right: make your case, but be aware that I have standards of evidence that I will hold you up to, similar to those demanded by a court of law. Basically: anything you say, or have read, is "testimony", but it's not physical evidence. There are claims of physical evidence e.g. Lourdes (a.k.a. the Placebo effect), bits of meat that don't rot (which are never examined), other things that would not hold up in court, if it was part of a murder trial.

Well, it is a "murder trial" of a sort, except that it's not a life that has been taken, but a life - my existence as a free thinking person - that you want to take away from me. Since I know that people can say or do anything to try to convince others (or themselves) of something they believe in, I expect evidence that I can see for myself, not filtered through anybody else. That rules out all your books, all your testimony, any attempt to use an "argument from authority".

In other words, don't tell me anything: show me. You won't talk me in to believing, and I don't expect to talk anyone out of their beliefs. The Emperor has no clothes, but he keeps on walking. I knew Wednesday's "debate" was futile going in, but it was fairly entertaining, in a "how far will they go" sense. Isn't the Dirty Sanchez show on next week? Mmmm... beer enemas... :eek:

delta_bravo

estebancambias wrote:

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

Really? I thought it was because you failed to acheive enough points for Arts?

philologos

DaveMcG wrote:

Scientists can show that the Bible is full of impossible events and miracles, but nobody can prove that god doesn't exist, no more than they can prove that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

Yes, impossible on the premise that God is a being that is subject to limitations. On the assumption that God did create the universe, how could the Creator be subject to limitations? That is the issue when that argument is put forward to a believer such as myself.

Spectator#1

delta_bravo wrote:

Really? I thought it was because you failed to acheive enough points for Arts?

That's the funniest thing I've seen all week. I knew I remembered Esteban from somewhere, he was posting here before the LC asking about points wasn't he?

Doesn't know the meaning of the word 'liberal' either by the looks of things.

Delta, bravo! Thank you, I needed that laugh, I actually hurt my throat I laughed so hard.

Spectator#1

stereoroid wrote:

You want me to change my life around, turn my critical faculties off, and adopt the religion you happen to be be burdened with? Right: make your case, but be aware that I have standards of evidence that I will hold you up to, similar to those demanded by a court of law. Basically: anything you say, or have read, is "testimony", but it's not physical evidence. There are claims of physical evidence e.g. Lourdes (a.k.a. the Placebo effect), bits of meat that don't rot (which are never examined), other things that would not hold up in court, if it was part of a murder trial.

Well, it is a "murder trial" of a sort, except that it's not a life that has been taken, but a life - my existence as a free thinking person - that you want to take away from me. Since I know that people can say or do anything to try to convince others (or themselves) of something they believe in, I expect evidence that I can see for myself, not filtered through anybody else. That rules out all your books, all your testimony, any attempt to use an "argument from authority".

In other words, don't tell me anything: show me.

Brent!

Sangre

btw you're on a fine line spectator. watch the personal insults

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

Yes, impossible on the premise that God is a being that is subject to limitations. On the assumption that God did create the universe, how could the Creator be subject to limitations? That is the issue when that argument is put forward to a believer such as myself.

The argument was that it's impossible to disprove god exists, the miracles point was an aside. It pretty much goes without saying that if you afford qualities to something that permits it to defy the laws of physics then there's no reason it won't do that. But since there's little or no unbiased historical record of these miracles, and there has been no instances of anything similar happening since, and also since they often are repeated in other religious texts (eg. virgin birth) -- I'm willing to consider them allegorical.

Spectator#1

Sangre wrote:

btw you're on a fine line spectator. watch the personal insults

Which ones would that be now Sangre?

philologos

DaveMcG wrote:

The argument was that it's impossible to disprove god exists, the miracles point was an aside. It pretty much goes without saying that if you afford qualities to something that permits it to defy the laws of physics then there's no reason it won't do that. But since there's little or no unbiased historical record of these miracles, and there has been no instances of anything similar happening since, and also since they often are repeated in other religious texts (eg. virgin birth) -- I'm willing to consider them allegorical.

So hang on. So "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods from me" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and might". Are these allegorical too? I would have considered them to be commands. If we start getting into allegory, I grant you elements of the Bible are allegorical, such as the start of the book of Ezekiel, but these 2 commands definetely are not. And when the Bible says that the Apostles too performed miracles in Jerusalem I don't think that it is merely allegory.

Spectator#1

Jakkass wrote:

So hang on. So "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods from me" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and might". Are these allegorical too?

They could be read allegorically. And they could be read in an allegorical way that is very relevant to the modern world, we're all familiar with the bastardisation of Christianity that's been going on since before medieval times, LAUNW summed it up quite well by saying that Christianity now isn't commensurate with Christianity 1500 years ago.

The 'worshipping of fallen Gods' could be seen as the reification of 'God' as a man in the sky which leads many people to denounce Christianity because they don't understand it and think it should provide proof, it could be George Bush's God who not only supports but endorses the war in Iraq, it could be seen in the evangelical bible-bashing that's going on all over the world at the moment (but especially in the states), and most of all it could be seen in the replacement of notions of 'God' as a concept with evolution--such as the likes of Dawkins are guilty of.

Sangre

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

Well then you're an ignorant person.

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

Perhaps these for example? And because you made me give these examples FINAL WARNING OR ILL KILL YOU DEAD.

philologos

Spectator#1 wrote:

They could be read allegorically. And they could be read in an allegorical way that is very relevant to the modern world, we're all familiar with the bastardisation of Christianity that's been going on since before medieval times, LAUNW summed it up quite well by saying that Christianity now isn't commensurate with Christianity 1500 years ago.

As with all faiths Christianity has evolved as society has evolved however the main principles of Christianity such as faith making one well in God's eyes still exist. Just our ways of practising have changed throughout the years, and now there is a huge selection in terms of how one can express this faith to God. I think it still remains very true to what the Bible sought of Christians. Of course there are always exceptions though.

Spectator#1

They're not really personal insults though Sangre.

The "don't be so autistic" one is an admonishment for making a rhetorical argument that doesn't work properly and demonstrates a lack of verbal reasoning, which is one of the symptoms of autism. You could read it as a personal slight but I wasn't using the condition of autism as an insult the way you read it. I was indicating that there was a distinction there to be recognised if LAUNWU was willing to make the effort.

And the other one, 'well then you're an ignorant person', was actually a factual statement. LAUNWU had outrightly refused to recognise that you cannot negate the existence of something using science, and so, cannot affirm the non-existence of something as fact. Thus, (s)he was being ignorant.

Sangre wrote:

And because you made me give these examples FINAL WARNING OR ILL KILL YOU DEAD.

Thou shalt not kill!

Dave!

Jakkass wrote:

So hang on. So "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods from me" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and might". Are these allegorical too? I would have considered them to be commands. If we start getting into allegory, I grant you elements of the Bible are allegorical, such as the start of the book of Ezekiel, but these 2 commands definetely are not. And when the Bible says that the Apostles too performed miracles in Jerusalem I don't think that it is merely allegory.

If you're willing to grant that some of the Bible is allegory, and there is no authority which can reliably decide which is metaphore and which is literal, then you can't really say what "definitely" is not allegory. Interpretations differ between readers. Alot of the "miracles" can most definitely be read as allegories... Jesus giving a blind man his sight... a deaf man his hearing... resurrecting from the dead... these all carry obvious metaphores. I'm sure if someone had the patience to go through the rest of them, most of them would carry a message of some sort (Jesus mixing with lepers, prostitutes, etc.), but I don't have that patience. Suffice to say that for the topic of this thread, it's irrelevent.

Out of curiosity, do you go to UCD or did you just notice this thread on the main page? Just wondering.

Spectator#1, shhhh!!!! Save yourself!!!

Spectator#1

Jakkass wrote:

As with all faiths Christianity has evolved as society has evolved however the main principles of Christianity such as faith making one well in God's eyes still exist. Just our ways of practising have changed throughout the years, and now there is a huge selection in terms of how one can express this faith to God. I think it still remains very true to what the Bible sought of Christians. Of course there are always exceptions though.

But we can distinguish between correct, fair interpretations of the Bible and inaccurate, bastardised ones. The changes that have occurred over time aren't just a fact that we have to accept, come on, God's personal endorsement of American wars in the Middle East and pretty much anything else Bush decides to do? Evangelical opposition to the teaching of scientific theories in schools?

That's not Christianity, it's quite simple. The central tenets of Christianity are sound, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, be a humble human being, don't kill or hurt other people--the American nationalist God is a 'false God', as is the evangelical one, as is this reified evolutionary theory Dawkins worships.

MrJoeSoap

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

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

I don't think Dawkins has any issue with that. Have you read The God Delusion?

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

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...

Well if you believe in something then you should have the convictions in your beliefs to say what you think. Judging by your posts, I am assuming you believe in a god, therefore you believe that all Atheists are wrong, and vice-versa. It's okay to admit that some believe and some don't, there is no problem there, but if you are at a UCD debate or posting on a messageboard such as boards.ie, you should be expected to engage in some sort of back-and-forth discussion on the issue and not just leave it as "some think X and some think Y, discussion over." Boards.ie would be a much quieter place if that were to be the case!

Mr. Nice Guy wrote:

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.

I'll agree with you there, there are a number of Atheists who are confrontational and condescending, but I hope this doesn't taint your view of all Atheists and lead you away from a decent discussion on the issue.

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?

Science has much more to offer than "stories". Scientists work on proving and disproving theories that they themselves hypothesize. A scientists main goal is certainly not to find a theory that disproves religion. Religion should not even come into the question with a scientist, they are here to help us find out more about the world around us. No need for the Al-Qaeda reference, if we are going to start playing silly analogy games there are plenty that can be aimed towards religion, which coincidentally is what most of those suicide bombers represent...

Mr. Nice Guy wrote:

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.

And vice versa. Until you can prove Gods existance, lay off on the silly analogies. The onus should not be on anyone to disprove the existance of 'God', it should be on the believers to prove it. Any answer involving the term "faith" does not cut it as part of a logical, rational discussion.

If I had a euro for every time I've said that sentence!

Mr. Nice Guy 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.

I can argue with that. The Old Testament is a violent piece of work, agreed? Cain kills Abel, Moses is a murderer, God kills the first-born Egyptian children, I could go on all day and all night. There can be little doubting the fact that whatever you think the Old Testament represents, there is a lot of violence and death in it. I would argue that whilst the bible clearly does infect a lot of principles into peoples lives, it is human intuition that allows us to seperate the good from the bad morals. In short, there is something inherent in the human consciousness that teaches us right from wrong and good from bad. If the bible didn't exist we would still realise that. If anything, the bible has caused more war and murder than it has prevented.

Genesis 4:8 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

Exodus 2:11 And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.

Exodus 2:12 And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand.

Exodus 11:7 But against any of the children of Israel shall not a dog move his tongue, against man or beast: that ye may know how that the LORD doth put a difference between the Egyptians and Israel.

Mr. Nice Guy wrote:

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.

It goes back and forth. Religious believers very rarely back up any sort of a statement with a coherent argument. They can't. They do have faith though. I completely understand why they would have faith, it is a tradition passed on for generations, my parents are both Roman Catholic, but that is as far as it will go in my family. Neither myself or my brother are believers. Judging by the poll in After Hours I've a feeling that is the way the country in general is going. Fifty years ago, Mass would have been packed each and every Sunday. Nowadays, my parents don't attend, and judging by what the local priest says in his sermons when I do attend at Christmas with my grandmother, the church is nigh-on empty every other week of the year.

My grandfather, a deeply religious man, died of a heart attack on a Saturday night while my grandmother was at mass. Whilst I would love to believe he is in a place like Heaven, I really would, I cannot. I believe when he died his body was buried and is now decomposing six feet under the ground. I hate to be so crude but there is no point in sugar-coating my beliefs and making myself ignorant to the facts. When my pet rabbit dies I believe the same thing will happen to it.

carlowboy wrote:

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

But why?

estebancambias wrote:

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

Because they allow people to debate an issue? If that's the case maybe you should refuse to attend boards.ie, after all they do have a forum for Atheists. If you don't mind me asking, which college in Ireland do you attend that doesn't allow for any deviant thoughts?

Also, feel free to argue any of the points I have made above.

philologos

DaveMcG wrote:

Out of curiosity, do you go to UCD or did you just notice this thread on the main page? Just wondering.

I noticed it on the main page. I'll be doing my LC this year. Is that an issue, or can I continue discussing this here?

The_Minister

Jakkass wrote:

I noticed it on the main page. I'll be doing my LC this year. Is that an issue, or can I continue discussing this here?

This isn't a closed shop:). You are of course, free to chat here. Ignore big, bad Dave

MrJoeSoap

The_Minister wrote:

Ignore big, bad Dave

Everybody else does...

I joke!

Dave!

Feck off! I wasn't even bein hostile to the chap, was just curious since he's never posted here before

philologos

Jakkass wrote:

So hang on. So "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods from me" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and might". Are these allegorical too? I would have considered them to be commands.

DaveMcG: could you deal with the above question.

Dave!

I thought I already did here.......

"If you're willing to grant that some of the Bible is allegory, and there is no authority which can reliably decide which is metaphore and which is literal, then you can't really say what "definitely" is not allegory. Interpretations differ between readers."

Spectator#1 also dealt with it in this post.

You have already conceded that some things in the Bible are allegorical and should not be taken literally, so then it's up to the interpreter to decide what is or is not literal.

I don't see what relevance those 2 specific quotes -- "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods from me" and "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and might" -- have to the topic though.

philologos

I don't see how those two specific commands could be taken to be allegorical

Dave!

It's not even relevent! I mentioned in passing the miracles of Jesus being taken allegorically (getting sick of that word now), and then you jump in and ask about the 10 commandments! When my point (and the prevailing topic of the thread at the time) was actually about not being able to disprove something exists!

It's not relevent, but there is no authority on interpreting the Bible, so it can be taken as literal or allegorical -- and indeed it is, as is the case in the story of Genesis. Let's leave it at that and go back to the original point, which was that nobody can disprove god exists, and nobody can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

If a theist thinks that anyone should be able to disprove god exists, then they'll have no trouble disproving the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.

Fact is, nobody entertains the notion that the FSM exists without evidence. If I claim that leprauchauns exist, nobody takes that seriously without evidence. I'm sure theists can agree with me so far. Yet when I bring up the point that there's no evidence for the Abrahamic god, I'm expected to provide evidence to the contrary. Seems a bit of a double standard to me.