Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Being stopped in the street to talk about "Jesus Christ".
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
Sacramento wrote: »@Jakkass Your posts are so full of assumptions it's painful to read and to debate these things with you feels like talking to an ignorant wall. I actually can't do it. I know I'm giving you the opportunity to come back and say I don't have anything to back up my argument and that's why I'm choosing not to continue the discussion with you, but your argument alone is so laughable in itself that no rebuttal is necessary.
You're not even debating Sacramento, you're merely parroting things. If you don't want to discuss, don't. I understand. I think I'll take up RussellTuring instead he seems more open to discussion
0 -
Advertisement
-
RussellTuring wrote: »Even if we were the product of a single creator deity, we wouldn't necessarily know it. The only reason we have this concept is that humans have a tendency to spread knowledge and ideas. Is it not much more likely that this tendency is the reason we have this concept, rather than it's supposed veracity? If every culture had a similar creation story and no alternatives had been proposed, you may have a point.The fact is, we've had many different proposals to explain why we're here, with most of them eventually fading into obscurity. What is it about monotheism that makes it a valid choice above all others, save it's current popularity?
True. We wouldn't of necessity know it. You come in with the assumption that it is man-made. I come in with the assumption that if there is a God, that He could and would desire to come into relation with mankind through revelation.
The argument that there are so many arguments doesn't mean that one of these claimed revelations may be correct. Rejecting them all could be very inadequate. This is why we should investigate rather than reject blindly.RussellTuring wrote: »Thanks for the recommendation. And you also seem to be a nice person. Next time I'm in Lucan I might send you a PM. I can't really recommend any books myself. I don't think any I read really influenced my lack of faith. I would say the Bible but you've obviously read that.
Yeah. Well, the reason why I'm arguing with you now is that I read the Bible out of curiosity. I would be an agnostic otherwise I suspect.RussellTuring wrote: »Intuition does not equal reason. Do you not agree with that?
Intuition and common sense is the best faculty that human beings have in order to determine what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Yes, it may be inadequate in some respects as it has its limitations, but ultimately human reason itself has limitations. Intuition is also the product of reason as I would see it. It is deducing what is reasonable given what we know about things already.
The problem manifests itself much like the problem with sense perception in philosophy. We can't ever know that our senses aren't deceiving us. Therefore using sense data from our senses is always prone to failure. However, the senses are ultimately the best guide that we have in many ways. It is by the eyes that we can determine things about colour, and shape. Indeed, the same is true for other faculties in how they tell us about things. They may be skewed, mistaken or wrong at times but ultimately it is the best guide that we have. I would say the same about common sense, and intuition. It is the best guide in helping us to determine what is reasonable and what isn't.RussellTuring wrote: »See above. I also disagree with your concept of morality. It would seem apparent to me that, given the conflicts we so often have, morality is by no means universal. I think for all intents and purposes, everyone in society has their own unique version of morality.The best we can do is try to decide on a set of rules that we agree with by and large and will submit to unless it is something with which we fundamentally disagree. Not sure how common this view is though.
Morality for the most part seems very much to be universal. One cannot explain that despite the fact that I have never met you in person and if you wrong me, I will still assume that we have a common sense of morality. The second I rebuke you for wronging me, I am assuming that there is a common moral law between us, or something that you should know that would make it evident to you that you are in the wrong. One can't deny this unless they are willing to employ an relativistic approach in terms of how they deal when they are wronged. Don't rebuke anyone then, just say well that's his understanding of what moral behaviour is, it may differ to my understanding so I should just tolerate it.
Nobody works on this basis, and we both know it.RussellTuring wrote: »I'm sure there are many reasons for your faith and wouldn't expect to get a good sense of them through this medium. I do appreciate your honesty and openness which are all too rare on both sides of these conversations.
I thank you for at least giving my POV a listen.RussellTuring wrote: »That's correct. Being the second person to comment on this, you deserve brownie points.
As a Computer Science student it would be a royal shame had I not heard about Alan Turing before now. As a Philosophy student it would be a royal shame if I hadn't heard of Bertrand Russell by nowRussellTuring wrote: »I hope you don't mind me butting in here, but why do you not take the good things we also do as evidence that we are inclined towards good?
Ultimately because we are not for the most part inclined towards it, at least not as I would see it.0 -
evercloserunion wrote: »I was once stopped by a Korean man and woman, the man was holding a laptop and the woman was holding a clipboard and they asked me if I would help them by doing a survey (this was in TCD campus so I presumed they were students doing research or something). I said grand, and they said they'd show me a video and ask me about my reactions to it. The video was all about how God is actually a woman and when it was over they told me they were part of some Korean religious sect and would I consider joining them.
They got me too, but I actually invited them into my house thinking it was a survey and then I couldn't get rid of them![:\](https://www.boards.ie/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
I had to make an excuse about feeding the kids 
0 -
True. We wouldn't of necessity know it. You come in with the assumption that it is man-made. I come in with the assumption that if there is a God, that He could and would desire to come into relation with mankind through revelation.
No. I actually start with the knowledge that the idea was certainly perpetuated by people. I then ask myself what is more likely: that it was first conceived of by humans, whom we obviously know exist, or that it was told to us by God, whose existence is still debated. I couldn't honestly say that the latter is more likely. You may very well believe that God reveals himself thusly, but that still requires the belief in God.The argument that there are so many arguments doesn't mean that one of these claimed revelations may be correct. Rejecting them all could be very inadequate. This is why we should investigate rather than reject blindly.
Indeed. So what is it that makes monotheism so much more likely than any other position, given all of those that appeared before and since?Yeah. Well, the reason why I'm arguing with you now is that I read the Bible out of curiosity. I would be an agnostic otherwise I suspect.
Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a gnostic theist?Intuition and common sense is the best faculty that human beings have in order to determine what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Yes, it may be inadequate in some respects as it has its limitations, but ultimately human reason itself has limitations. Intuition is also the product of reason as I would see it. It is deducing what is reasonable given what we know about things already.
The problem manifests itself much like the problem with sense perception in philosophy. We can't ever know that our senses aren't deceiving us. Therefore using sense data from our senses is always prone to failure. However, the senses are ultimately the best guide that we have in many ways. It is by the eyes that we can determine things about colour, and shape. Indeed, the same is true for other faculties in how they tell us about things. They may be skewed, mistaken or wrong at times but ultimately it is the best guide that we have. I would say the same about common sense, and intuition. It is the best guide in helping us to determine what is reasonable and what isn't.
That doesn't exactly answer my question. Are reason and intuition equivalent?Morality for the most part seems very much to be universal. One cannot explain that despite the fact that I have never met you in person and if you wrong me, I will still assume that we have a common sense of morality. The second I rebuke you for wronging me, I am assuming that there is a common moral law between us, or something that you should know that would make it evident to you that you are in the wrong. One can't deny this unless they are willing to employ an relativistic approach in terms of how they deal when they are wronged. Don't rebuke anyone then, just say well that's his understanding of what moral behaviour is, it may differ to my understanding so I should just tolerate it.
Nobody works on this basis, and we both know it.
It seems universal to you. I don't see why I should accept any assumptions that you make. Surely that is your duty to prove?
If somebody wrongs me, I don't by any means assume that they have at all the same morality as me. If I did, I would be imposing my views on them and I couldn't justify that. Why, when I inevitably have conflict with people of opposing moral views, would I assume that we share universal morals? That seems preposterous. There are many things on which the majority of people do agree, of course, but this by no means indicates that we agree on everything. There is quite a difference.
I work on this basis, and I know it.I thank you for at least giving my POV a listen.
I thrive on intelligent and civil disagreement.As a Computer Science student it would be a royal shame had I not heard about Alan Turing before now. As a Philosophy student it would be a royal shame if I hadn't heard of Bertrand Russell by now
Indeed it would. I study Computer Science also.Ultimately because we are not for the most part inclined towards it, at least not as I would see it.
It would seem to be a matter of opinion so. I just find it curious that you think we are by default bad people. I think that's quite a negative view.0 -
You're not even debating Sacramento, you're merely parroting things. If you don't want to discuss, don't. I understand. I think I'll take up RussellTuring instead he seems more open to discussion
How do you expect him to discuss anything with someone who sends telepathic message to a wizard in the sky? It's madness & fruitless!
You can't have any sort of logicical or common-sense based discussion with anyone who believes in such fantasy nonsense.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
RussellTuring wrote: »No. I actually start with the knowledge that the idea was certainly perpetuated by people. I then ask myself what is more likely: that it was first conceived of by humans, whom we obviously know exist, or that it was told to us by God, whose existence is still debated. I couldn't honestly say that the latter is more likely. You may very well believe that God reveals himself thusly, but that still requires the belief in God.
Absolutely RussellTuring, but if you are God and if you desire to communicate with people, people are inevitably going to have to be involved. There is no way of getting out of that one.
I found personally that when I was reading the Bible for the first time, 17 nearly 18. I found that the process started by thinking about Creation. Is it more sensible or not that there is a Creator, or that this all came from itself? I thought about this all the more, but the more I thought about it the less it started to make sense that this could just be a cosmic accident. It was from the point of thinking about a Creator that I began to think about what God this could be, or indeed what gods. At this time I looked to the Qur'an also, and I also got exposure to other religions through my LC Religion class. I looked into a lot of stuff essentially, but it was from this stage of understanding that there was probably a Creator that I reached a point that I could understand what revelation or not best held up. I was admittedly surprised about what I had learned in Christianity that I had never seen before as a kid going to church with my parents, or indeed that didn't seem to be present in the other religions I looked at. I was also surprised to see how reasonable Christianity was, and I was surprised to see what a strong case there was for it by reading some Christian apologetics.
By the by, your argument against religions in particular could also be used against atheism, an idea unlike the others which is without doubt the brainchild of individuals.RussellTuring wrote: »Indeed. So what is it that makes monotheism so much more likely than any other position, given all of those that appeared before and since?
Christianity seemed to hold up pretty well. I would give arguments in favour of a panthenon of gods a consideration certainly.RussellTuring wrote: »Out of curiosity, do you consider yourself a gnostic theist?
I think the scale isn't all that useful. I don't believe that someone is authentically an "agnostic" if they believe that God's existence is as likely as fairies at the back of their garden to use a Richard Dawkin's phrase.
I would consider it as follows:
1: Atheist - someone who sees it as more likely that God doesn't exist.
2. Agnostic - someone who is unsure as to whether or not God exists.
3. Theist - someone who sees it as more likely that God exists.
If you want my answer on the scale in The God Delusion I am a 2.RussellTuring wrote: »That doesn't exactly answer my question. Are reason and intuition equivalent?
Intuition and intelligent speculation are the product of ones rational faculty. The reason may be inaccurate and misguided, but ultimately if you want people to believe in things it needs to be inherently sensible and reasonable to the individual who is to believe in it.
People should be able to understand the logic behind something. If they don't understand the logic there is no reason whatsoever why they would believe in it.RussellTuring wrote: »It seems universal to you. I don't see why I should accept any assumptions that you make. Surely that is your duty to prove?
People operate inherently as if it is universal. You have zero right to rebuke me for what I do unless there is a moral system that is in common between us. How can you be sure that you are right otherwise?RussellTuring wrote: »If somebody wrongs me, I don't by any means assume that they have at all the same morality as me. If I did, I would be imposing my views on them and I couldn't justify that. Why, when I inevitably have conflict with people of opposing moral views, would I assume that we share universal morals? That seems preposterous. There are many things on which the majority of people do agree, of course, but this by no means indicates that we agree on everything. There is quite a difference.
The second you claim that someone is wrong you are assuming immediately that they should have some means of understanding you. What are those means if they are not a common moral system?
You mention that there is a conflict to begin with, but why would one initiate conflict to begin with unless they genuinely believed that they were objectively right?
That's what I mean when I say that the mechanics of morality are geared towards universalism. I already mentioned that people can suppress their consciences by following their desires. It is possible that people can ignore aspects of their God given consciences. However, ultimately on a broad scale most humans in most societies agree as to the core nature of morality, and what is at its most basic right and wrong. At least that is what I have found from looking to a lot of ethical systems.RussellTuring wrote: »I work on this basis, and I know it.
I'm doubtful of this in practice to say the least!RussellTuring wrote: »I thrive on intelligent and civil disagreement.
GreatRussellTuring wrote: »Indeed it would. I study Computer Science also.
Even better :pac:. Dare I say it is one of my other passions in life.RussellTuring wrote: »It would seem to be a matter of opinion so. I just find it curious that you think we are by default bad people. I think that's quite a negative view.
I think we were created for a good purpose but we lost our way. It doesn't mean that we cannot at times do what is good, but it does mean that for as long as we choose not to reflect God that we are prone to sin even if we can adhere to His standards momentarily.Forest Master wrote: »How do you expect him to discuss anything with someone who sends telepathic message to a wizard in the sky? It's madness & fruitless!
What religion is that? :pac:Forest Master wrote: »You can't have any sort of logicical or common-sense based discussion with anyone who believes in such fantasy nonsense.
Yeah yeah yeah I've heard it all before man :pac:. Present some proper arguments and we can get going. Otherwise lets not 0 -
-
-
-
Present some proper arguments and we can get going. Otherwise lets not
LOL - says the Catholic.
How about "it's simply a made-up load of bollocks with zero proof that any of it is true whatsoever in any capacity"?
The lack of any type of evidence whatsoever for the existence of God is sufficient proof for me. Not sure how much more obvious it could be, really. ZERO evidence is quite finite, IMO. It's already absolute - how can there ever be any LESS evidence? It can't even be debated using logic - and if you can't bring logic & reason or any type of tangible proof into a debate, then it's just a circular & pointless & fruitless discussion.
Edit:
And PAMG trying to use love in his/her analogy, by saying "ah yes, but how do you know anyone loves you?" and "how do you know love is real, or even exists?" really is clutching at straws, and doesn't even hold water as an argument itself. I'll debunk his theory as follows:
Love is an emotion that we know exists because we ourselves feel it for other people/things - therefore WE KNOW it exists - therefore, we don't have to prove that someone else feels it for us to know it exists. We already know, because we're capable of feeling it ourselves.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Repeating 'no evidence' ad-nauseum is the easiest thing one can do. How about giving some real reasons why you don't believe in God. I would suspect that that would be a good deal more challenging for you and a great deal more interesting for us on the thread.
If the 100% lack of any evidence whatsoever isn't a "real reason" acceptable to you, how can I ever satisfy you in this debate?
Ok - Jimbo Mugokko, the real creator of the universe, came to me in a vision and told me there was no God.
Proof enough? Is that more down your alley?0 -
Forest Master wrote: »
If the 100% lack of any evidence whatsoever isn't a "real reason" acceptable to you, how can I ever satisfy you in this debate?
No it isn't a real reason, it's a lazy option and it shows how awful your case is.
When put to scrutiny apart from the "Oh, there's no evidence" lark there's not much left and even that is very questionable. It's really easy to complain about what other people present, it's not quite as easy to present anything coherent for oneself. At least that is what I'm finding with most atheist argumentation at least on boards.ie.0 -
Forest Master wrote: »
If the 100% lack of any evidence whatsoever isn't a "real reason" acceptable to you, how can I ever satisfy you in this debate?
Ok - Jimbo Mugokko, the real creator of the universe, came to me in a vision and told me there was no God.
Proof enough? Is that more down your alley?
This is the exact problem I was having earlier on in this debate. No evidence to support his believe and yet he says, "well, it's easy to say there's no evidence, so you can't keep using it in your argument".I'm not a Roman Catholic :pac:
It's where I disagree with you. There is evidence for God's existence. Evidence != proof.
What evidence? Enlighten us please.0 -
-
-
-
Sacramento wrote: »This is the exact problem I was having earlier on in this debate. No evidence to support his believe and yet he says, "well, it's easy to say there's no evidence, so you can't keep using it in your argument".
I know. The ignorance & denial is actually shocking. The 100% lack of evidence for the existence of God isn't enough! 100%, FFS! It's actually impossible for there to be any less evidence! Then he says things like "ah, but there is plenty of evidence" and then doesn't specify anything except this:
What "indicatory" [not a real word, BTW, but you're used to made-up stuff] evidence? Be specific, man!The more and more indicatory evidence that presents the Bible as being authentic, or that presents God's existence as likely, or anything else (including personal experience) that backs up any other claim for Christianity the more and more reason I have for believing in it.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement