Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Sarky

PDN wrote: »

Living up to your name, I see.

Mock away, some of us are not ashamed to love people and pray on their behalf. It does more good than trolling on internet fora.

Well, did it provide any effect aside from the natural empathy anyone could create by sympathising with someone and sharing their grief?

And again, why so snide? The sneer is almost visible from your words? Manners cost nothing, PDN.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, and maybe you should never ask other people for anything because they aren't always going to say yes.

I'm sorry that you are under the illusion that Christians believe that there is a Divine Slot Machine that will give them everything they ever wanted.

Do you not see the contradiction?

On one hand you have a prayer thread to ask God for things and on the other hand you are saying you don't believe God does things when you ask him?

Put away your slot machine rhetoric and just explain that contradiction.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I can't answer as to why they think anything. You cited the study, not me.

Real prayer involves love and concern, not repeating by rote a set of names that mean nothing to you. Not even names, in the case of the study you cited. Just first names and initials.

You can get someone to bow their head and read from a list: "Lord, we pray for Tom B. Paddy M. & Doris K. who we don't know but they're part of a scientific study." Or you can really pray, where you weep with those who are weeping and cry out to God on their behalf.

So, to clarify then if you are praying the PDN way, there is a better chance God will answer- yeah? So, would you say that people you pray for the PDN way have a better chance of recovery from heart surgery than people you don't know, don't love and don't pray for?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So, to clarify then if you are praying the PDN way, there is a better chance God will answer- yeah?

No. That isn't what I said - so stop lying.

indioblack

Tim Robbins wrote: »

In another thread I asked Christians if they could get proof they were wrong would they want to hear it. For example, say someone invented a time machine and you could travel back in time and see that things like the resurrection and the miracles in the New Testament never happened.

A few people said yes. Then someone took it off on a tangent as if this was Pascal's wager it clearly wasn't.

And then it was closed and suggested it belongs to this thread. So here it is...

Would you prefer to no?

As an atheist, I would definetly prefer to know if any religion (Islam, Christianity, whatever...) was true if it was true. I would accept as evidence something that could stand up the rigors of the scientific method. Or something like the second coming, if Jesus came back and starting performing a few more miracles - this time having to go thru the rigours of proper skeptical analysis so that he is not using slight of hand.

I would still be a little skeptical about following Jesus - would need to find out more about his views on morality.

As a skeptic, the idea of a time machine providing verification of the truth of religious belief is appealing.
But would it not cause more problems than it would solve - and not just for believers?
I am reminded of Farmer's sci-fi novel "Jesus on Mars", and the chaos that ensued when Jesus, (if it was him), announced that he would return to Earth - he had promised them a second coming.
I wonder where we would be with absolute knowledge - does it destroy the edge of mystery - or banish ignorance?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

No. That isn't what I said - so stop lying.

That was a question asking for clarification. It even has a question mark. So how could that possibly be a lie?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what power your prayers have? (note question mark).

Tim Robbins

indioblack wrote: »

As a skeptic, the idea of a time machine providing verification of the truth of religious belief is appealing.
But would it not cause more problems than it would solve - and not just for believers?
I am reminded of Farmer's sci-fi novel "Jesus on Mars", and the chaos that ensued when Jesus, (if it was him), announced that he would return to Earth - he had promised them a second coming.
I wonder where we would be with absolute knowledge - does it destroy the edge of mystery - or banish ignorance?

I'm sorry I don't understand your point.

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That was a question asking for clarification. It even has a question mark. So how could that possibly be a lie?

Perhaps you'd like to clarify what power your prayers have? (note question mark).

This is not about my prayers. It's not about me at all. My point is that heartfelt prayer is different from someone reading initials off a sheet because a researcher has aked them to do so.

Northclare

Sarky wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

Living up to your name, I see.

Mock away, some of us are not ashamed to love people and pray on their behalf. It does more good than trolling on internet fora.

Well, did it provide any effect aside from the natural empathy anyone could create by sympathising with someone and sharing their grief?

And again, why so snide? The sneer is almost visible from your words? Manners cost nothing, PDN.

Well Sarky if we all had attitudes like you our attitudes would cost us everything,you seem to be the one who's always moaning,and groaning.

Maybe Sarky you should take a look at Sarky rather than worry about all the damage Religion has done to you and Co

Because it seems Sarky's worst enemy is Sarky....

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

This is not about my prayers. It's not about me at all. My point is that heartfelt prayer is different from someone reading initials off a sheet because a researcher has aked them to do so.

OK so heartfelt prayers can actually get God to do something?

Yeah?

Given that your heart actually has no emotions what you are actually saying is if you try to use the emotional part of the brain: Limbic System you've got a better chance?

Here's where I think it's flawed. I assume the people in that study who were praying were genuine believers. I see no difference between them praying for someone they don't know than you or any Christian here praying for someone in your prayer thread which is equally as impersonal.

When Christians are asked to pray they genuinely mean it and it is heartfelt.
I don't think you can dismiss their prayer so easily.

It seems odd that God would rate how much of the Limbic system is active when they prayer is said - what's the cut off?

Slav

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I think many atheists would say the biblical events - that involve something super natural - from the snake talking to Noah's Ark, to 42 kids being punished for slagging a bald man, to Jesus creating fish out of nothing - didn't happen. Many Christians now admit that these super natural events are allegories. But that there are still some super natural events that did actually happen.

Two problems here. First, not all theists, Christians including, consider it mandatory or in any way important that supernatural things should happen in this world. Many of them believe only natural things happen in nature and at the same time see no problem remaining theists. Second, if a supernatural thing does happen in nature does it not make it actually a natural phenomenon? Or else it's impossible to deal with scientifically.

If I could see proper evidence of these things it would make me question me my lack of believes. I'd be seriously confused but definetely not as confident as I currently am in my dismissal of Christianity.

See, even this pseudo-scientific time travel to the past cannot prove anything as you still have to bring in believes here which is obviously not scientific.

Well yeah you could negate Christianity?

If the time travelling prooved that Bible is chinese whispers with nothing historical accurate- then Christianity has been debunked.

1 down - several thousand to go...

And another 2 problems here. First I redirect you to your statements here and here that you would consider a scientific evidence in support of religion, not an evidence against. Second, even if you refuted Christianity you have not debunked theism in any way. As you know there are theistic interpretations that don't rely on natural events as much as Christianity does (Christianity is actually rather unique here) or even explicitly rejects the possibility of supernatural being reflected in natural world. But even ignoring these two problems it still makes even Christianity a poor candidate for scientific investigation as far as I can see: what would you think of a would be scientific theory that does not make any testable predictions and is only falsifiable by travelling back in time and somehow registering a certain event didn't happen back then? Would such theory be a suitable one to deal with scientifically?

So I still don't see any grounds for you invoking the scientific method here. Make some falsifiable assertions based on theism; come up with testable predictions based on theism - then we can possibly talk about scientific method. Otherwise it just makes it looking like some sort of primitive Dawkins-style atheism that you confess.

Fanny Cradock

Sarky wrote: »

Well, did it provide any effect aside from the natural empathy anyone could create by sympathising with someone and sharing their grief?

And again, why so snide? The sneer is almost visible from your words? Manners cost nothing, PDN.

And you are here to lecture people on manners. Really?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction?

On one hand you have a prayer thread to ask God for things and on the other hand you are saying you don't believe God does things when you ask him?

Put away your slot machine rhetoric and just explain that contradiction.

If that's what you think I said then I suggest you go back and read what I actually wrote.

Fanny Cradock

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Given that your heart actually has no emotions...

Wow. Stop the press! Could it be true? The heart doesn't have emotions.

You know, Tim, you've been allowed to unspool on this thread for a bit and we've seen what has popped out. It's not pretty. You haven't shown the slightest sign that you are interested in listening to other opinions. That's why you have either misunderstood or misrepresented what people have said.
Let's cut to the chase, Tim. Climb on that hobby horse of yours and begin criticising C.S. Lewis.

Sarky

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And you are here to lecture people on manners. Really?

To be blunt, yes. I am a cantankerous git, and I'm pretty happy with that, so don't try to shame me by playing that card, it won't work and it should be beneath you. Being a cantankerous git makes such behaviour easy to see in others, such as PDN's unpleasant tirades of late. Don't try to bullsh*t a bullsh*tter.

I'm not here to keep things civil (although if you can find 5 posts in this forum where I actually abuse someone, you're welcome to provide links), I'm not a moderator of the Christianity forum. You guys are. So swallow your snide comments and try being a little more civil.

Now, on-topic: how about that god chap then? There's not much in the way of convincing evidence that he's real, or that faith does anything the placebo effect can't.

Fanny Cradock

Sarky wrote: »

To be blunt, yes. I am a cantankerous git, and I'm pretty happy with that, so don't try to shame me by playing that card, it won't work and it should be beneath you. Being a cantankerous git makes such behaviour easy to see in others, such as PDN's unpleasant tirades of late. Don't try to bullsh*t a bullsh*tter.

I've never tried to play that card. And I can't imagine why you would think such a thing. If you are happy contributing unpleasantly pithy one-liners to this forum then so be it. It certainly seems to be your modus operandi for here.

The reason why I find your moral outrage difficult to accept is because not only did you admit to being a bull****ter and a cantankerous git, your contributions appear to border on low-level trolling. And all delivered with a sneer.

Sarky

I'm sorry you feel that way Fanny Craddock. And, for what it's worth, I'm sorry that I appear to have annoyed you. I tend towards coarse and terse simply because it's efficient. I often don't realise that there are people who will find that offensive. Sometimes, when involved in an argument, I end up fighting fire with fire. That doesn't make it right, I know, but it happens nonetheless, and for that you have my sincere apologies.

indioblack

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I'm sorry I don't understand your point.

I was wondering where we would be in the unlikely event that "proof" was produced about the existance or non-existance of God.
In the example I gave, a man, probably an alien but able to manifest himself as the description of Jesus, announces to the world that he will "return".
In the book, this causes some obvious problems for non-Christian faiths - some Christians are overjoyed - but the real interest in the book is with those who have become athiest - they have to do some rapid re-evaluation.
Not just whether to accept this Jesus, but is he actually Jesus or someone with the ability to masquerade as the New Testament character?
With this "proof", of course, it's unlikely that faith would be required.
But would people lose some of the dynamic that can happen when a subject such as this - the title of this thread - is debated.
It is, after all, no small beer - for some it is the purpose of existance - whichever side of the argument they're on.
Hope it's a bit clearer - don't worry, I often confuse myself in debates like this!

Fanny Cradock

Sarky wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way Fanny Craddock. And, for what it's worth, I'm sorry that I appear to have annoyed you. I tend towards coarse and terse simply because it's efficient. I often don't realise that there are people who will find that offensive. Sometimes, when involved in an argument, I end up fighting fire with fire. That doesn't make it right, I know, but it happens nonetheless, and for that you have my sincere apologies.

Well, thanks for that. But I'm really not annoyed or insulted. I've been around this forum long enough to have heard a fair wack of the foolishness some people get up to, and I'd include myself in that.

I just found you very odd that you would criticise somebody for sneering or whatever while doing it yourself.

Anyway, how about we leave it there?

Pax

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

I'm sorry you feel that way Fanny Craddock. And, for what it's worth, I'm sorry that I appear to have annoyed you. I tend towards coarse and terse simply because it's efficient. I often don't realise that there are people who will find that offensive. Sometimes, when involved in an argument, I end up fighting fire with fire. That doesn't make it right, I know, but it happens nonetheless, and for that you have my sincere apologies.

It might be useful if you showed an interest in anything that Christians happened to say or argue, it might actually do a world of wonder for atheist - Christian dialogue if we could frankly have an honest, reasonable, and most of all civil discussion about why we think the way we do without lobbing in ad-hominems.

I don't think I've ever seen you take anything but the approach you've described on boards.ie

Sarky

That's because every single time without fail that you've said "As far as I can see" or equivalent, you haven't really looked.

Perhaps you missed the "why don't we leave it there?" bit above. Anyway, you have a whole load of posts from nozzferahhtoo from the last couple of years to address before anyone takes you seriously outside this forum. You don't really need to be trying to extend someone else's argument.

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

That's because every single time without fail that you've said "As far as I can see" or equivalent, you haven't really looked.

Perhaps you missed the "why don't we leave it there?" bit above. Anyway, you have a whole load of posts from nozzferahhtoo from the last couple of years to address before anyone takes you seriously outside this forum. You don't really need to be trying to extend someone else's argument.

No I don't. I have a perfectly sound reason for not responding to nozzferrahhtoo. Namely, that he's rude, and obnoxious. I've responded to many of his posts before, he's one of 3 people on boards.ie (out of the many many I've discussed with) I have on ignore precisely because I don't see what fruit discussing with him could bring.

I'm only interested in respectful discussion. If he PM's me and says that he's interested in that, then off he comes from the ignore list. Rather simple.

I don't like doing it, but I'd much rather discuss with someone in a respectful manner about Christianity rather than someone who is going to be absolutely obnoxious about it.

I post on boards.ie in my free time, and I'm not going to waste my time getting into a discussion with someone who isn't going to have a civil conversation much as I wouldn't with someone who behaves that way on the street.

seeing_ie

Slav wrote: »

Is not scientific method limited to deal with natural phenomena? And religion in general deals with supernatural?

Black holes are perfectly valid objects of scientific investigation. They were predicted by a scientific theory and are being successfully investigated by employing scientific method in its modern form.

I don't think the distinction between science and religion is the boundary between material and spiritual. It's natural and supernatural.

I agree scientific method can be used to investigate some religious claims but it cannot be used to investigate a religion in general. These two are essentially different things.

In case of fake Mary's blood a scientific experiment can prove it's a fake but no scientific experiment can produce evidence for Catholic Mariology or prove it wrong. In other words scientific experiments are useless because Mariology is not falsifiable and it does not make any predictions, like the blood of Mary should appear on her statue in a certain church in Northern Italy in 2008.

Perhaps Christina Gallagher could be informed of this, considering she's predicting the end of the world (relaying a message from the virgin mary) any day now.

Luckily Christina is selling pictures that will protect a household from this apocalypse, so that's something.

Slav

seeing_ie wrote: »

Perhaps Christina Gallagher could be informed of this, considering she's predicting the end of the world (relaying a message from the virgin mary) any day now.

It could be of some value if Christina Gallagher and Mariology were the same thing.

If I predict that by the end of the year Christina Gallagher evolve into Richard Dawkins would it falsify the theory of evolution when she remains being who she is next year?

Tim Robbins

Slav wrote: »

Two problems here. First, not all theists, Christians including, consider it mandatory or in any way important that supernatural things should happen in this world. Many of them believe only natural things happen in nature and at the same time see no problem remaining theists. Second, if a supernatural thing does happen in nature does it not make it actually a natural phenomenon? Or else it's impossible to deal with scientifically.

I don't see why either of those are problems.

See, even this pseudo-scientific time travel to the past cannot prove anything as you still have to bring in believes here which is obviously not scientific.
The time travel is a thought experiment. We don't have the science to disprove 100% gods, but I am suggesting something that might disprove one of them.

And another 2 problems here. First I redirect you to your statements here and here that you would consider a scientific evidence in support of religion, not an evidence against. Second, even if you refuted Christianity you have not debunked theism in any way. As you know there are theistic interpretations that don't rely on natural events as much as Christianity does (Christianity is actually rather unique here) or even explicitly rejects the possibility of supernatural being reflected in natural world. But even ignoring these two problems it still makes even Christianity a poor candidate for scientific investigation as far as I can see: what would you think of a would be scientific theory that does not make any testable predictions and is only falsifiable by travelling back in time and somehow registering a certain event didn't happen back then? Would such theory be a suitable one to deal with scientifically?

So I still don't see any grounds for you invoking the scientific method here. Make some falsifiable assertions based on theism; come up with testable predictions based on theism - then we can possibly talk about scientific method. Otherwise it just makes it looking like some sort of primitive Dawkins-style atheism that you confess.

If you go to back to what I originally said, which was if there was something that could disprove your faith would you prefer to know about it? The time travel etc were just ideas to help people understand the question.

Instead of dealing with the original question, some of you just misinterpreted as a debate about if science can disprove your God.

Tim Robbins

indioblack wrote: »

I was wondering where we would be in the unlikely event that "proof" was produced about the existance or non-existance of God.
In the example I gave, a man, probably an alien but able to manifest himself as the description of Jesus, announces to the world that he will "return".
In the book, this causes some obvious problems for non-Christian faiths - some Christians are overjoyed - but the real interest in the book is with those who have become athiest - they have to do some rapid re-evaluation.
Not just whether to accept this Jesus, but is he actually Jesus or someone with the ability to masquerade as the New Testament character?
With this "proof", of course, it's unlikely that faith would be required.
But would people lose some of the dynamic that can happen when a subject such as this - the title of this thread - is debated.
It is, after all, no small beer - for some it is the purpose of existance - whichever side of the argument they're on.
Hope it's a bit clearer - don't worry, I often confuse myself in debates like this!

Sorry don't understand your point, question, argument whatever it is...

seeing_ie

Slav wrote: »

It could be of some value if Christina Gallagher and Mariology were the same thing.

If I predict that by the end of the year Christina Gallagher evolve into Richard Dawkins would it falsify the theory of evolution when she remains being who she is next year?

Point taken. I assumed the term mariology could be applied to Christina Gallagher's claimed relaying of apocalyptic messages from the virgin mary.

What's your position on the activities of Christina gallagher?

Slav

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I don't see why either of those are problems.

Too bad you don't. Fundamentally, theism and science deal with different realms. Science does not need anything supernatural to be consistent. Similarly, theism in general does not need anything natural to be internally consistent. They just don't have common ground.

If you go to back to what I originally said, which was if there was something that could disprove your faith would you prefer to know about it? The time travel etc were just ideas to help people understand the question.

Instead of dealing with the original question, some of you just misinterpreted as a debate about if science can disprove your God.

Well, that's how discussion boards work, if you are making a statement while asking a question be prepared that your statement will be questioned in return by others. So it comes from your claim that scientific method is good enough to investigate religion. So far you failed to explain why and how. I'm sorry but it was you who brought science in here, not me or anybody else.

Slav

seeing_ie wrote: »

What's your position on the activities of Christina gallagher?

You mean whether it's a commercial enterprise or a psychiatric condition? I don't know the girl so I wouldn't rule out any of those. Maybe it's both at the same time.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

No I don't. I have a perfectly sound reason for not responding to nozzferrahhtoo. Namely, that he's rude, and obnoxious. I've responded to many of his posts before, he's one of 3 people on boards.ie (out of the many many I've discussed with) I have on ignore precisely because I don't see what fruit discussing with him could bring.

I'm only interested in respectful discussion. If he PM's me and says that he's interested in that, then off he comes from the ignore list. Rather simple.

I don't like doing it, but I'd much rather discuss with someone in a respectful manner about Christianity rather than someone who is going to be absolutely obnoxious about it.

I post on boards.ie in my free time, and I'm not going to waste my time getting into a discussion with someone who isn't going to have a civil conversation much as I wouldn't with someone who behaves that way on the street.

And this is why nobody takes you seriously. The whole thing is a matter of record. Your pattern repeats itself every time you evangelise in, say, After Hours. The only discussions you are willing to enter are where everyone already agrees with you. Any evidence is ignored with "I don't have time to watch this" or "that would be better suited to x forum" or "come back when you're ready for a discussion" or some other excuse. As soon as questions get tough, you leave.

That, Phil, is rude and obnoxious. Everyone else here posts in their free time too, and somehow most discussions manage to keep going. Your excuses are weak. The image others are left with is a drive-by troll who was never interested in discussion because Jesus is more important than manners or even facts.

You want a debate? Nozzie's waiting. Get to it.

JimiTime

Sarky wrote: »

And this is why nobody takes you seriously. The whole thing is a matter of record. Your pattern repeats itself every time you evangelise in, say, After Hours. The only discussions you are willing to enter are where everyone already agrees with you. Any evidence is ignored with "I don't have time to watch this" or "that would be better suited to x forum" or "come back when you're ready for a discussion" or some other excuse. As soon as questions get tough, you leave.

That, Phil, is rude and obnoxious. Everyone else here posts in their free time too, and somehow most discussions manage to keep going. Your excuses are weak. The image others are left with is a drive-by troll who was never interested in discussion because Jesus is more important than manners or even facts.

You want a debate? Nozzie's waiting. Get to it.

In response to this.

For the record Phil, I take you seriously and I'd be VERY surprised if I was the only one. I have much respect and admiration for your tone, patience and quite frankly manners that are beyond reproach in terms of the abuse you get from posters like the above. I really wish I had your patience sometimes.