The God Debate

stereoroid

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

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

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

Le Rack

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

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

fillefatale

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

LAUNWU

stereoroid wrote:

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

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

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

In my eyes, there is no debate...

stereoroid

LAUNWU wrote:

In my eyes, there is no debate...

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

Spectator#1

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

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

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

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

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

Dave!

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

The_Minister

stereoroid wrote:

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

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

Much love to Spectator 1.

Dave!

Well there wasn't anything new there

delta_bravo

DaveMcG wrote:

Well there wasn't anything new there

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

stereoroid

DaveMcG wrote:

Well there wasn't anything new there

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

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

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

LAUNWU

Spectator#1 wrote:

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

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

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

uhuh......

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

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

Mr.Nice Guy

LAUNWU wrote:

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

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

LAUNWU wrote:

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

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

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

Court: What caused the bang?

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

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

Spectator#1

LAUNWU wrote:

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

Yes, it is, what's your point?

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

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

Yawn.

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

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

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

Spectator#1

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

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

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

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

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

The_Minister

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

Spectator#1

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

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

LAUNWU

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

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



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

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

Court: What caused the bang?

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

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

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

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

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

LAUNWU

Spectator#1 wrote:

Yes, it is, what's your point?

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



Yawn.

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

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

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

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

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

Spectator#1

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

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

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

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

Spectator#1

LAUNWU wrote:

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

Well then you're an ignorant person.

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

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

Mr.Nice Guy

LAUNWU wrote:

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

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

LAUWU wrote:

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

Good for you.

LAUWU wrote:

i dont need to prove anything.

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

LAUNWU wrote:

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

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

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

LAUNWU wrote:

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

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

Spectator#1 wrote:

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

Well said, man.

LAUNWU

Spectator#1 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

watch and learn, i give up byeeeeee

Mr.Nice Guy

LAUNWU wrote:

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

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

Pugwash

one man's ignorance is another man's faith

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

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

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

lizzyvera

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

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

lizzyvera

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

carlowboy

lizzyvera wrote:

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

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

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

Sangre

Le Rack wrote:

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

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

mrniceguy wrote:

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

Yes, it injects man made principles.

estebancambias

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

Spectator#1

haha

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?