Is it ultimately pointless to engage in debate with those who believe in a deity

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

It's anti-science not to consider this as a real possibility and to see if there is a logical reason that it could be so, rather than just dismissing it off the cuff.

No, it's not. I don't think you get what the Scientific Method is, but it's worth reading up about it so you know where scientists (as distinct from atheists btw) are coming from.

That's why the promotion of atheism should have nothing to do with science, and rather atheists should stop claiming that they somehow are superior due to being "more scientific". What a load of tripe.

Where did I suggest that atheists are "superior due to being more scientific"?

BTW, you as an atheist, and scientists as well... scientists, have nothing to suggest that a Creator is an incorrect hypothesis, therefore it shouldn't be ruled out.

A scientific hypothesis BY DEFINITION has to be testable:

Jakkass wrote: »

Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

Did I misinterpret your thoughts on this point?

Micky Dolenz

Zillah wrote: »

Define fanatical please.

As you wish,

overenthusiastic.

I have read through a few posts/threads:

I am an Atheist am I smarter than a ten year old person who belives in a god, any god?

I am an Atheist, I wouldn't date or sleep with someone who belives in a God, any god. Would you? (That was my favorite one)

I am Atheist, should I bother debating anyone with a different belief system?

I am an Atheist, I am (a) God.

etc etc and so on.

Please...

I know plenty of people who don't give a toss about a God or any God, but they sure as hell don't bore me with why they do, don't whatever.

The Atheists that do are fanatical in my opinion.

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

Science and Religion don't argue. It's Atheists and people of faith. Atheists are not the equivalent of science. I personally have no issue with modern science. Actually it seems to me that atheists abuse science to pursue their own goals even when science has no stance on the God question at all.

I'd just like to know whether that squares with this:

Jakkass wrote: »

Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

Part of Genesis can be interpreted as God flooding the surface of the planet in recent historical times. Scientists have tested this and concluded that this interpretation is wrong. Scientists have derived and tested naturalistic models of earthquakes, hurricanes and other calamities, and these have supplanted earlier ideas of divine intervention. Were these scientists acting in defiance of the injunction against putting God to the test?

Edit: So would Naz_st, I see. Faster than me.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You misunderstand, Atheism leads to Scientific inquiry, not vice versa.

Then why did modern science emerge in Christian Europe?

Zillah

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

The Atheists that do are fanatical in my opinion.

I'm bored of you. Does that mean you're a fanatic?

Húrin

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but how can a Christian honestly do a scientific experiment? If you believe in an intervening God who answers your prayers how can you tell if any set of results are real or just God's current whim. Maybe he's rewarding you or punishing you or maybe he hasn't intervened this time, how can a Christian tell and have any confidence in their results.

Watch some Christians scientists working and you will find out. However, I don't know how your parody of a Christian can honestly do a scientific experiment. You do know that you have parodied rather than represented Christian beliefs, right?

Zillah wrote: »

Hypothesis: God "A" exists. He is all powerful and praying to him when you are sick makes you better.
Methodology: Have religious cancer patients pray, and receive no medication. Have group of athiests not pray, but receive medication.
Result: Mass grave full of dead fools.
Conclusion: God "A" does not exist.

That's not the Christian God.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

That's not the Christian God.

That's nice.

Micky Dolenz

Zillah wrote: »

I'm bored of you. Does that mean you're a fanatic?

Thats real good.:pac:

I do find your "I know what you are, but what am I" type response funny, Juvenal but amusing.

Mickeroo

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

As you wish,

overenthusiastic.

I have read through a few posts/threads:

I am an Atheist am I smarter than a ten year old person who belives in a god, any god?

I am an Atheist, I wouldn't date or sleep with someone who belives in a God, any god. Would you? (That was my favorite one)

I am Atheist, should I bother debating anyone with a different belief system?

I am an Atheist, I am (a) God.

etc etc and so on.

Please...

I know plenty of people who don't give a toss about a God or any God, but they sure as hell don't bore me with why they do, don't whatever.

The Atheists that do are fanatical in my opinion.

I think you're missing the point ie how much fun it is to bother religious folk :P

Micky Dolenz

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think you're missing the point ie how much fun it is to bother religious folk :P

:pac::pac:

Damn, wish I knew some religous folk:pac:

Max Power1

It is impossible to win a rational debate with someone who believes in magic tricks, illusions, and the existince of an all knowing all powerful super-being, through blind faith. Faith is not compatible with proven logic and rationale.

Liber8or

I would like to direct people to my thesis on the subject since the origins of this debate seems to have stemmed from a statement I made.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59764559&postcount=90

Overblood

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

That's great. Neither do Christians! You see, we DO have things in common.

Christians don't believe that garbriel descended from heaven and announced to mary that she would fall pregnant magestically?

gaynorvader

I think that debate between Atheists and Theists do have a point/purpose. Debate seems to be the best way of finding out about yourself and exploring your beliefs. I agree with Mickey that "fundamentalists" on both sides are very similar. I believe that the reason for this is that they both refuse to listen to the reasoning behind what the other side has to say. Both believe they are right. Now to the tricky part. In general, speaking from personal experience, I have met far less religious people whom are willing to admit, even for a moment, that they might be wrong. This is why I get into so many more arguments with religious people than non-religious people. I do enjoy laughing at the extremes of either side though!

I think the main problem with religious debates lies in the fact that people spend so much time nit-picking over little nuances like "anti-scientific" and "untestable" to name but two examples.;)

gaynorvader

Overblood wrote: »

Christians don't believe that garbriel descended from heaven and announced to mary that she would fall pregnant magestically?

They do, but you over-simplified and took it out of context in your previous post.

philologos

darjeeling: Metaphysical claims != Scientific claims.

Not all claims are scientific. I hold to Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy concerning different means of assessment for different things.

It's a distortion of science I think to suggest that it is binding on absolutely everything we do the same way.

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

darjeeling: Metaphysical claims != Scientific claims.

Not all claims are scientific. I hold to Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy concerning different means of assessment for different things.

It's a distortion of science I think to suggest that it is binding on absolutely everything we do the same way.

I'm afraid I can't see what this has to do with my question.

Going back, FD framed an imaginary hypothesis concerning God's response to prayer, and proposed a scientific test of this hypothesis. You stated, quoting scripture, that the test itself was a violation of God's law:

Jakkass wrote: »

Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

This has nothing to do with philosophical or metaphysical questions of whether the effects of prayer may be measured scientifically; you didn't say that the scientific test would merely be ineffective, but that it was inherently contrary to the will of God.

This is not quite so hypothetical as it may sound, given that there is a body of scientific research addressing the effect of prayer on patient outcome in clinical practice. There are, then, scientists doing exactly what you've stated to be against God's law. Should they stop in deference to your religion?

In exactly the same way, scientists have used a literal Biblical reading of God's actions in creating the universe and all therein to frame hypotheses about biology, geology etc. Again it matters not that the scripture may be allegorical or touch on some 'deeper truth' inaccessible to science; the scientists were - and implicitly still are, though the question is long resolved - testing whether God acted literally as described in Genesis. My question again is whether such science defies your law against putting God to the test. Does it?

Flamed Diving

Zillah wrote: »

God, being an entity that answers prayers on Thursday, does not exist.

I think your reasoning is a little off here. Put it this way: You and I are biologists looking for an animal that villagers have said lives in the jungle. It's like a monkey but has a blue horn on it's head. It's called Orangazure. We search extensively for weeks and find no sign of such a creature. When I express doubts about its existence you point at another monkey and say "Well that could be the Orangazul except maybe the Orangazul doesn't have a blue horn".

When we perform a test we're not testing for all hypothetical definitions of God, we're testing a specific one. Just like when we're searching for an animal, we're searching for a particular animal, not all hypothetical animals that we'll give the same name to.

But would science has definitively that such a creature is proven not to exist?

Flamed Diving

Liber8or wrote: »

I would like to direct people to my thesis on the subject since the origins of this debate seems to have stemmed from a statement I made.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=59764559&postcount=90

How humble of you.

philologos

darjeeling wrote: »

This is not quite so hypothetical as it may sound, given that there is a body of scientific research addressing the effect of prayer on patient outcome in clinical practice. There are, then, scientists doing exactly what you've stated to be against God's law. Should they stop in deference to your religion?

They can research until their faces go blue, you are no longer testing the Christian God, but rather nothing at all. God in the Christian definition cannot be tested by man, but rather that man is tested and challenged by God. There are indications to suggest God's existence in the world. However that is as far as people will probably ever reach in terms of knowledge. If we proved God conclusively there would be no need or role for faith.

darjeeling

Jakkass wrote: »

God in the Christian definition cannot be tested by man, but rather that man is tested and challenged by God.

OK. Thanks for clearing that up. Man can't test God after all - we presumably discount this warning:

Jakkass wrote: »

Flaming Diving: Do not put the Lord your God to the test. So you expect to break God's law, and for Him to answer your prayers? Not effective.

And science can happily roam where it wants and test what it wants. That's all I wanted to know!

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

If we proved God conclusively there would be no need or role for faith.

Don't you think that gives an unfair advantage to (because faith was easier as a result)

a) the biblical people who had direct interaction with either Jesus or God

b) modern people who have close encounters with their deity on a personal level

philologos

darjeeling wrote: »

And science can happily roam where it wants and test what it wants. That's all I wanted to know!

Yes, but it's ridiculous because it's not an accurate test for how effective prayer is then. You are no longer testing the God of Christianity, but rather a distortion of it. As I say they can keep doing it until theirs faces go blue.

PDN

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but it's ridiculous because it's not an accurate test for how effective prayer is then. You are no longer testing the God of Christianity, but rather a distortion of it.

But that's rather the point isn't it? It's not science in the sense of trying to discover if something is true or not. It's all about how to another point of view as being wrong.

stevejazzx

But we can test the recorded/written (as in the bible say) observations of said God. We cannot prove that something doesn't exist but we can show that the evdience that something does eixst looks wrong. And that's what prayer studies confrim.

philologos

Prayer studies don't confirm anything though. God is an intelligent being, He will know when people are testing Him. It's rather obvious that under those circumstances the Biblical God if he indeed exists will not be tested. You wouldn't be dealing with the God of the Bible otherwise.

stevejazzx

They can confirm that historical observations of God don't match current observations in any way. This infers that the original observations were inaccurate in some way.

sink

Jakkass wrote: »

Prayer studies don't confirm anything though. God is an intelligent being, He will know when people are testing Him. It's rather obvious that under those circumstances the Biblical God if he indeed exists will not be tested. You wouldn't be dealing with the God of the Bible otherwise.

This whole 'don't test god' lark should be a red flag for anyone thinking straight. If I were to create my own religion it would be an essential component, as it ensures I can never be proved wrong. It's so obvious an evasion I can't understand how anyone with half a brain can buy it (not calling people who buy it stupid just that I don't understand it). If the god of Abraham existed he wouldn't need this clause but since he doesn't his religion does.

Naz_st

Jakkass wrote: »

It's anti-science not to consider this as a real possibility and to see if there is a logical reason that it could be so, rather than just dismissing it off the cuff... scientists, have nothing to suggest that a Creator is an incorrect hypothesis, therefore it shouldn't be ruled out.

Translation: "Science should explore the concept of God and not rule it out"

Jakkass wrote: »

darjeeling: Metaphysical claims != Scientific claims.

Not all claims are scientific. I hold to Ludwig Wittgenstein's philosophy concerning different means of assessment for different things.

It's a distortion of science I think to suggest that it is binding on absolutely everything we do the same way.

Translation: "Science should not explore the concept of God, as it's not a scientific claim"

You should run for government with this level of flip-flopping proficiency!

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

But we can test the recorded/written (as in the bible say) observations of said God. We cannot prove that something doesn't exist but we can show that the evdience that something does eixst looks wrong. And that's what prayer studies confrim.

No, some prayer studies find that, others find the opposite. Whatever the result, the whole notion of scientifically testing the effectiveness of prayers is preposterous. For instance, there is absolutely no way you can guarantee that a control group hasn't received prayers.