Dead men DO bleed! : On debating with theists.

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

Which is all well and good, as long as they keep it to themselves. Posting about it on a public forum is not keeping it to themselves.

But you posted this thread where it stated you prefer religious people that argue to those who don't! so I delved in!

Yes I must get off this board, but I cant stay away, ive always like a juicy debate.

we'll say debate not argument!

midlandsmissus

oh are you online now? sweet! was there any questions you said to me earlier there that I missed?

Galvasean

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I have a degree in science you can be interested in science and still be religious

Oh know you DIDN'T! :pac:

oeb

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But you posted this thread where it stated you prefer religious people that argue to those who don't! so I delved in!

Yes I must get off this board, but I cant stay away, ive always like a juicy debate.

we'll say debate not argument!

No, I posted this thread asking is it pointless arguing with a theist.

midlandsmissus

Galvasean wrote: »

Oh know you DIDN'T! :pac:

hehe I was debating whether to mention it. Cause it'll open me up to a million more questions, but hey bring em' on!

midlandsmissus

oeb wrote: »

No, I posted this thread asking is it pointless arguing with a theist.

whoops sorry, I stand corrected, it was another poster who said it.

Zombrex

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I believe all religions are good, and god doesn't care which one you follow.

Ok .... ??

You do know that Christianity says the exact opposite to that?

Exodus wrote:

1 And God spoke all these words:

2 "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.

3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.

3 Do not have any other gods before me.

4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me,

6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Which would raise the question where you go such an idea from in the first place? Have you basically just made up your own version of a religion?

Poppy78

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok .... ??

Have you basically just made up your own version of a religion?

Why not, Jesus, Mohammad, Buddha and all those others did?:D

I am going to become a midlandsmissusian.

kiffer

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Cerebralcortex,

I believe all religions are good, and god doesn't care which one you follow. Obviously it wouldnt be fair if only one religion was right, and people in different geographical areas didn't have access to it, so I dont believe that.

[...]

Obviously it wouldnt be fair? ... neither God nor the universe are known for being fair.
Well actually sometimes people claim that the God is always fair but those people clearly have a different interpretation than I do of both reality and things like the Book of Job... in which God lets the Devil ruin Jobs life completely to settle a bet on whether or not Job will crack... and later it is claimed that it's all fair, under some sort of "the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away/easy come, easy go" clause.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok .... ??

You do know that Christianity says the exact opposite to that?



Which would raise the question where you go such an idea from in the first place? Have you basically just made up your own version of a religion?

Sure why not? It can't be any stranger than the generally accepted version.

ChocolateSauce

So midlandmissus, what do you do?

JohnGalt

My approach to debating theists is similar to my approach to getting into a bath of water, I dip my toe in first to make sure it isn't scalding hot, and equally, when debating a theist I try to get an idea of how reasonable they are before I really put forward any arguments or attempt to refute theirs. If in that period they come across as nuts, I simply refuse to debate them. The smug "we then I am right" type responses this results in are not half as annoying as the "why aren't monkeys giving birth to humans today" comments which inevitably lie ahead on the other route.

CerebralCortex

Fascinating you were an atheist and you are a scientist yet openly embrace a very tied down and specific set of beliefs. I get the feeling you choose christianity because it is the most exceptable, most recognised brand of belief out there I could be wrong you did say

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I believe all religions are good, and god doesn't care which one you follow. Obviously it wouldnt be fair if only one religion was right, and people in different geographical areas didn't have access to it, so I dont believe that.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I dont think religion explains everything. I think the bible was interpreted by men at the time so I dont believe everything in it. I think we are on this world to learn. You can never stop learning.

Ah I have to check you on that because religions claim to do exactly that. Also the bible is of man its not interpreted the writers were peddling the truth and that was their goal to write down the "truth" of everything and spread it as such.

Yes learning is good I'm learning from you and hopefully you from me the disclaimer was an effort to emphasise that intention.

kelly1

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Souls(which is really just conciousness) that can go on for an infinity? Souls that were created by an entity that is infinite yet has human emotions?

Wee correction.

God doesn't have human emotions because God isn't human.

Jesus has human emotions because He has a human (and divine) nature.

gosplan

midlandsmissus wrote: »

That's not what I said. i said: there are alot of things that dont make sense in the world, therefore it is not that illogical to me to believe in a deity.(combined with my experiences of course)

If we do not understand something, that does not mean that the correct course of action is believing in an unsubstantiated answer.

If you have faith, then go for it. But accepting that you don't know something makes far more sense than making up answers (unless you're in a multiple choice quiz .. which you might be, who knows?)

sink

kelly1 wrote: »

Wee correction.

God doesn't have human emotions because God isn't human.

Jesus has human emotions because He has a human (and divine) nature.

Ah right got it now :rolleyes: wait isn't jesus god?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok .... ??

You do know that Christianity says the exact opposite to that?

I don't often agree with Wicky, but he's right about this one. God and falsehood have nothing in common.

For example, if reincarnation is true, then Jesus died in vain.

CerebralCortex

kelly1 wrote: »

Wee correction.

God doesn't have human emotions because God isn't human.

Jesus has human emotions because He has a human (and divine) nature.

Kelly1 how many times have you told me about the goodness of your loving god and how sin offends him how if we reject him he rejects us, sounds like emotions to me. You've officially gone down a few rungs on the ladder of credibility sir.

kiffer

kelly1 wrote: »

Wee correction.

God doesn't have human emotions because God isn't human.

Jesus has human emotions because He has a human (and divine) nature.

I don't know... God is sometimes a little angry in the old testament.
Of course sometimes he's pleased too, he likes the smell of burning offal for example.

CerebralCortex

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Kelly1 how many times have you told me about the goodness of your loving god and how sin offends him how if we reject him he rejects us, sounds like emotions to me. You've officially gone down a few rungs on the ladder of credibility sir.

don't forget the jealousy

Goduznt Xzst

oeb wrote: »

But I read a story online a few days ago that sums it up, and I thought I would share it with you. I can't find my oridginal source, so this is phrased from memory.

I read this link recently myself. Here it is: http://atheistwiki.wikispaces.com/Why+you+can%27t+win+an+argument+about+what+the+Bible+says

I've stopped arguing the bible and other "holy" writings with theists because of this also. Language, in general, does not lend itself easily to argument. There is no way, without talking directly to the original writers of the bible, to know the correct meaning of it. Which is why so many sects can crop up and still be able to validate their opinions by "understanding" the bible in a manner that suits ther opinions.

I'm sure midlandsmissus could find a bunch of scriptures to support her opinion that God loves you, no matter what religion or God you worship.

Trying to tie down a religious person to what they actually believe is a fools errand and usually denigrates into an argument over semantics and whether a given scripture is literal or allegorical (i.e. see any of PDN's arguments)

midlandsmissus wrote: »

That's not what I said. i said: there are alot of things that dont make sense in the world, therefore it is not that illogical to me to believe in a deity.(combined with my experiences of course)

midlandsmissus, I'd like you to admit that it is as logical to believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster explains all that does not make sense in this world as it is to believe that the Christian God explains it. If not then I'd like you to detail how the 2 are different, and how it is more logical to believe in the Christian God.

CerebralCortex

bluewolf wrote: »

don't forget the jealousy

Well I didn't want to bring into the gutter

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

God doesn't have human emotions because God isn't human.

Yes but God is modeled on humans. He acts like humans acts, and does things based on human emotions. All the emotions that God is described as having are found in humans (love, anger, hate, jealousy)

Bit funny that a deity would act like this until a person realises that the deity doesn't actually exist, they are simply a concept invented by humans projecting a familiar agent (a human) into the realm of nature.

Can you point out an emotion that God is described as having that is not found in humans?

Húrin

Dades wrote: »

My point was not that science can answer every question, but that science seeks to answer every question. Including the origins of life, the universe and everything.

I'm curious to know where this is written besides this thread. Who got to speak for science? Why do you think it seeks to do what it can't do? Why do you put science on this pedestal? Careful not to make a religion out of it.

eoin5 wrote: »

My experience of these discussions usually involves a theist rationalising every accusation or ending up in godwins law.

As I said, I think in this instance, the example vs counter-example method is not helpful. Suffice to say that for every crusade there's a purge. :pac:

The fact is most of them are wrong due to the amount of different gods out there. Shouldnt it therefore make more sense to put god belief down to a human trait rather than a very twisted god that likes to send incompatible versions of himself to different regions.

And why is it a human trait?

(Possible) Cause: A real God who has given humans a thirst for him.
Effect: A thirst in humans for a real God.

In other words, if there's an appetite, then there is a food for it.

Wicknight wrote: »

So the argument not to take human experience as meaning anything particularly sound has very little to do with strangeness of the ideas, and a lot to do with trusting human experience.

Human experience is very very unreliable. The issue for religion, and belief in God, is that it is based entirely around human experience, human testimony.

So you think that anything which is not scientifically verifiable must be false? Why is human experience wrong? Why is it so untrustworthy? Since your experience and deduction have much overlap (i.e. much of what can be discovered by deduction is also perceived by you) why is said experience so unreliable?

Wicknight wrote: »

It is in fact the "strange" that bothers us, that we don't understand, that our brains fight against, and which leads people to religion.

Actually it causes exploration, and thus science. The fact that we do not genetically understand how the natural world works is something that religion does not try to tell us much about. That is what science is for. Religion is a framework for learning rather different things than the scientific framework allows for.

Húrin

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok .... ??

You do know that Christianity says the exact opposite to that?

I would be surprised if midlandsmissus doesn't know this. Why don't you use some tact? She will come to agree to this or reject this decisively in her own time.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Fascinating you were an atheist and you are a scientist yet openly embrace a very tied down and specific set of beliefs.

My church has many doctors and other science professionals among its members, and they are genuine believers. There is nothing "tied down" about a Christian intellect, nor does it preclude continuous reassessment of one's beliefs. I found atheism to be more intellectually sterile and rigid.

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

So you think that anything which is not scientifically verifiable must be false?

No, I think it is very difficult to know if something (a observed phenomena) that is not scientifically verifiable is in fact true.

And, perhaps more importantly, it is very difficult to model something without using science, thus making understanding of something practically impossible.

Húrin wrote: »

Why is human experience wrong? Why is it so untrustworthy?

Are you asking for the biological explanation, or is this a rhetorical question along the lines of "Why must we always fight with our siblings at Christmas?"

Assuming it is the former rather than the later, human experience is so untrustworthy because our brains are not evolved to process information and experience in the most truth orientated manner. Rather we have evolved certain processes that work well when applied in some areas but very badly in others (by working well I mean providing use with a truthful view of the world)

For example our brains have evolved to put a huge amount of emphasis on processing events through the context of human interaction. This works very well when we are dealing with human interaction, we have a wide range of instincts that allow us to understand how humans interact and this provides us with a range of skills in social settings.

The other side of that is though that we have such emphasis in our brains on this context that we apply it to other things that have nothing to do with human interaction at all. We have a natural instinct to view the entire world in terms of human like agents that interact with nature for human like purposes. This becomes most obvious in primitive concepts like spirits and gods, which are human like agents that effect the world around us. So the Moon rises because a human like god makes it rise. Ships get lost at sea due to high winds and waves because a human like god decided that is what will happen.

That is just one example of how we are not particularly good at processing nature in the most truthful fashion (in truth the Moon has nothing to do with a god, nor does it "rise" due to his wishes). There are plenty more, but I'm still not sure your question was not rehtorical yet so I think I will wait and see ...

Húrin wrote: »

Actually it causes exploration, and thus science.

In some yes, but not in others.

Religion's goal is the same purpose as science, to increase understanding of the world, but the problem is that it falls back on the unreliable instincts we have about how the world is supposed to work according to us, instincts that often have very little to do with how the world actually works.

We retreat towards these instincts, and models that fit within these instincts (such as religion) because it causes less internal conflict with us. For example, it makes "sense" to us that something happens because a human like agent (a god say) decides it happens because we have instincts designed around understanding and processing events in terms of human interaction. This is independent of the question of whether or not the thing we are trying to understand has anything to do with interaction with an agent.

A classic example of this is the very common assertion that the universe must have been made by someone. We believe this must be true because our instincts are telling us it should be true, and our instincts are telling us that because in human society things are made by people for a purpose.

We have evolved to expect that because that helps us understand the local social interactions we have with other humans, but our brains take it all a bit too far and start applying it to everything.

Religion then confirms these instincts to us (yes the universe was made by someone, for a purpose, just like a pot or a jug or a cart), and we find this explanation pleasing and comforting because it fits with our instincts. We are not fighting our instincts, our "common sense" with this explanation. But of course none of that has anything to do with whether or not it is actually true or not.

Húrin wrote: »

Religion is a framework for learning rather different things than the scientific framework allows for.

But that is the point, you don't actually learn anything from religion. Yes it is giving "answers", but answers which you have no idea if they are true or not.

They are comforting answers that fit with what we believe should be true so people are often quite happen to accept them as true, but again that is not the same as them actually being true.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

My church has many doctors and other science professionals among its members, and they are genuine believers. There is nothing "tied down" about a Christian intellect, nor does it preclude continuous reassessment of one's beliefs. I found atheism to be more intellectually sterile and rigid.

What is the purpose of that kind of statement? Like, I'm wondering should I pander to something which is obviously bait for a flame. Did I ever say anything about the intellect of Christians? Also what in the name of the flying spagetti monster is a "Christian intellect" as opposed to just intellect. Your reasoning is purely anecdotal and I could only reply anecdotally which would bring this debate nowhere. I will say this humans in my experience are quite good a comparmentlisation of their thought processes.

midlandsmissus

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok .... ??

You do know that Christianity says the exact opposite to that?



Which would raise the question where you go such an idea from in the first place? Have you basically just made up your own version of a religion?

Well wicknight I'm glad you asked me!

Here is what I think:

All religions are based around a god obviously. These Gods in every religion have different names. In my opinion each god that people believe in is the same god. They just have different names due to different languages and cultures. Therefore this is not worshipping false idols etc. this is all worshipping the one god. so it doesn't matter what group you affiliate yourselves with. It doesnt matter. It just depends on yuor geographical circumstances. Lets look at each main religion:


Islam - Muslims believe in a God who dictated the quoran to Muhammad. Now could muhammad not maybe be their name for the person we call jesus. Just different societies give different names? Or maybe there was different prophets sent to different continents. People obviously base their religion around the one theyve heard about. Just because I believe in Jesus, doesnt mean i dont think there could have been other teachers in different places around the world. why not? Muslims believe in many similiarites such as the angel gabriel. Muslims mainly believe jews and christians to be wrong because they distorted the revelations in the quoran. Not that judaism and christiany are completely wrong. just that they went off on a different branch

Hinduism - beleive in god, eternal souls and angels. they call God 'Brahman'. Who is to say this is a different god to the one i believe in? just a name in their language for him?

Judaism - very similiar to christianity, they believe in the 'God of Abraham'. believe in jesus, the only difference is they believe he was a prophet not the son of god.


Buddhism - believe in the prophet Buddha. Who's to say god didnt send a prophet to india to teach there. christianity wouldnt include it because obviously it happened in a faraway area, so people wouldnt have known about it. it makes sense to me for a prophet to have existed in india to influence their religions, and not be in the western world religions.

Buddhists believe in heaven and hell the same as christians do- just different levels of heaven and different levels of hell. They call heaven nirvana.

If you look at all the main religions they all have very similiar ideologies. Alot of religions feature in other religions. In my personal opinion, the god everyone believes in, call him allah, god or whatever, is the same god.

Now last of all, I would call myself a christian, but that doesnt mean i believe every single thing set out for me by churches or the bible. I disagree with things. I question things. I say to myself 'it was a human who wrote that, and whos to say they know any more than i do'. The bible isnt the final word to me. Who's to say it hasnt got distorted over years of translation. I beleive you have to find your own way to god. Not read or let other people tell you what to do.

If you're calling yourself something it doesnt mean you cant disagree with some of the teachings. I wish atheists on here would understand this. you make your own way. it's all about your own personal path. that's what i really beleive.

I beleive in jesus which is why i call myself a christian. but i disagree with alot of things the christian church teaches. I think original teaching becomes easily warped and changed through humans, as it is very easy and probably human nature to bend religion for their own personal gain and power.

I make my own way.

Dades

Húrin wrote: »

I'm curious to know where this is written besides this thread. Who got to speak for science? Why do you think it seeks to do what it can't do? Why do you put science on this pedestal? Careful not to make a religion out of it.

I'm not sure what you seem to think science is. The most basic definition I can find is that science is "knowledge attained through study or practice".

So how anyone can read read restrictions into "knowledge" I don't know. "Knowledge" is all encompassing, therefore science as a search for knowledge is unrestricted.

I didn't notice any pedestal btw. Maybe it's invisible too?

midlandsmissus

midlandsmissus wrote:

Buddhists believe in heaven and hell the same as christians do- just different levels of heaven and different levels of hell. They call heaven nirvana.

We certanly don't.
And we even more emphatically do not believe nor preach that if one does not follow buddhism one is going to any sort of "hell".
We believe in rebirth, not one life. We believe in release from suffering, not happily going through it as some means of getting closer to god. Generally we must critique the teachings for ourselves, and not follow them blindly. Buddha was not a "prophet", buddha was a man who had some very insightful and amazing teachings based only on his own, completely human experiences.

There are so many profound differences in the entire approach to either religion I don't even know where to start.

I suggest this link as some basic reading:
http://64.233.183.132/search?q=cache:YuR8oF2LKaoJ:ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W1101.pdf

Mlm, lumping all religions together like this in some fluffy attempt at "we're all the same really" is, while understandable, almost insulting to many of them and shows a clear lack of knowledge about them. In one line alone you managed to dismiss the entire of the Hindu religion, with all its devas, asuras, scriptures, debates on whether it is monotheistic or hard polytheistic, its philosophies, the concept of karma and dharma which are completely different to western religions, with "they believe in god too".

You are of course free to pick and choose what you may believe, but don't parade it as teachings of any given religion unless that's what it actually is, and with research done into that religion.

midlandsmissus

bluewolf wrote: »

We certanly don't.
And we even more emphatically do not believe nor preach that if one does not follow buddhism one is going to any sort of "hell".
We believe in rebirth, not one life. We believe in release from suffering, not happily going through it as some means of getting closer to god. Generally we must critique the teachings for ourselves, and not follow them blindly. Buddha was not a "prophet", buddha was a man who had some very insightful and amazing teachings based only on his own, completely human experiences.

There are so many profound differences in the entire approach to either religion I don't even know where to start.

I suggest this link as some basic reading:
http://64.233.183.132/search?q=cache:YuR8oF2LKaoJ:ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W1101.pdf

Mlm, lumping all religions together like this in some fluffy attempt at "we're all the same really" is, while understandable, almost insulting to many of them and shows a clear lack of knowledge about them. You are of course free to pick and choose what you may believe, but don't parade it as teachings of any given religion unless that's what it actually is, and with research done into that religion.

Hi Bluewolf,

Excuse me if i'm wrong about any aspect of buddhism, I have a friend who is a buddhist and i'm going on information I obtained from her. she told me there were stages of heaven and the highest one is called nirvana. Maybe there's different practices in buddhism then?

You can leave buddhism out from the list above, as it is the most different of all of them really.

Otherwise i'm sticking by my opinion. I'm not saying they're all exactly the same. i'm saying i'm sure god doesnt care which one you affiliate yourselves with.