Religion

[Indigo]

Ridiculous. Absolute trash.

 

There is/are no objective morality or ethics. Sure. This does not mean we cannot build our own code through reason, through rationality. Using a natural rights framework (the right to life and the right to freedom of choice as the two basics) we can and do employ a code for conduct and we can criticize other codes that do not respect the natural rights framework (Islam being the biggie here).

 

Of course, natural rights are a construction, but if you do not subscribe to them then I do not want to know you. Compassion perhaps cannot be explained. However, it has nothing to do with a selfish desire for eternal life.

Okay, so there are no objective values, no right and wrong. And yet anyone who doesn't subscribe to your 'natural rights framework' should be criticised and disowned? That's inconsistent.

[Haden]

Okay, so there are no objective values, no right and wrong. And yet anyone who doesn't subscribe to your 'natural rights framework' should be criticised and disowned? That's inconsistent.

 

This is the important bit I think.

[Paj!]

I'd just prefer if there weren't really obviously flawed logic/rules in organised religion nowadays.

 

At least move with the times.

 

Seriously, things like gay marriage (the main cliched one) not being allowed is a bit silly. No one (unless you are a retarded chav) has reason to segregate anyone anymore, without even knowing them. It's the same as saying "Black people may not get married", "People with curly hair may not get married" etc.

 

Rules rules silly silly rules.

[Haver]

If you seriously, genuinely, actually think that the rights to life and freedom of choice are contestable, if that is your position, then don't bother talking to me. I am perfectly serious. I will know your character.

 

If you do not believe, even it is an ideological step, that everyone is born equal, and has the right to not be killed or murdered, to not be chained, then I do not need your contribution on morality. Simple as.

 

Natural rights are not objective, but they are humane, the standards for society.

 

I hope you understand what you're arguing.

[Haden]

If you seriously, genuinely, actually think that the rights to life and freedom of choice are contestable, if that is your position, then don't bother talking to me. I am perfectly serious. I will know your character.

 

If you do not believe, even it is an ideological step, that everyone is born equal, and has the right to not be killed or murdered, to not be chained, then I do not need your contribution on morality. Simple as.

 

Natural rights are not objective, but they are humane, the standards for society.

 

I hope you understand what you're arguing.

 

Do you believe in abortion then? Also you didnt answer my question about war. Was the guy who murdered someone who he saw raping his 8 year old kid in russia recently wrong does he deserve the death penalty? He was acting on natural impulses against someone doing something horrific.

 

lol at the I will know your character bit you seem very quick to make objective statements about people youve never even met me and because I oppose your viewpoint your not going to talk to me?

[Indigo]

If you seriously, genuinely, actually think that the rights to life and freedom of choice are contestable, if that is your position, then don't bother talking to me. I am perfectly serious. I will know your character.

 

If you do not believe, even it is an ideological step, that everyone is born equal, and has the right to not be killed or murdered, to not be chained, then I do not need your contribution on morality. Simple as.

 

Natural rights are not objective, but they are humane, the standards for society.

 

I hope you understand what you're arguing.

You miss my point entirely. I'm not saying I don't believe in human rights. But what I'm saying is that is meaningless to even claim that something is 'humane' or the 'right thing' if there are no objective moral standards. It is logically inconsistent.

 

How can we judge that natural rights are 'humane' or the standards for society? The only logical answer is that they are objective, universal truths. That is my point.

[The fish]

How can we judge that natural rights are 'humane' or the standards for society? The only logical answer is that they are objective, universal truths. That is my point.

 

They may be objective and universal, but that is fairly simple to explain - they were an evolutionary necessity at some point.

[Haver]

Do you believe in abortion then? Also you didnt answer my question about war. Was the guy who murdered someone who he saw raping his 8 year old kid in russia recently wrong does he deserve the death penalty? He was acting on natural impulses against someone doing something horrific.

 

lol at the I will know your character bit you seem very quick to make objective statements about people youve never even met me and because I oppose your viewpoint your not going to talk to me?

 

-- Would discourage it, but there is freedom of choice to decide.

 

-- No one deserves the death penalty. There is the right to life.

 

-- If you don't believe that everyone has the right to life, or the right to freedom of choice, then we can't be friends. Simple as that. Those are basics.

 

Indigo: We can't claim them to be objective because nothing is. But they're as close to objective as we're going to get. It is hard to explain, I grant you that. To say it is purely for the operation of society is cold. For me, it is human feeling. It is what I want for everyone like me. So, emotional. And therefore chemical.

 

It has nothing to do with God, or religion. The fact that we live in a chaotic, meaningless universe is a problem we have to overcome, not explain away. And to start with granting life to everyone, based on equality at birth, is appropriate.

 

There is a point where you put your foot down and say these are our standards, we the voice of the educated and the rational and the reasoned.

[Gizmo]

Archelogical evidence for events in the bible conenciding historically with events is pretty strong not that this proves it but also a load of prophicies from the old testemant went on to be fulfilled like a silly amount.

 

Things may well have taken place, indeed I believe there is proof that a man named Jesus Christ lived 2008 years ago. That doesn't mean he was the son of "God".

 

And just as many prophecies didn't come true. It's the same as the starsigns argument - if something is broad enough it's bound to come true at some point.

 

I would argue again first cause the uniqueness of humans morality and logic the insight and revolutionary nature of jesus's outlook give the bible a strong case. Its not a religion that has to hide behind mis or non understandings in my opinion.

 

I do believe I read somewhere that in two different sections of the bible - two of the disciples gospels - there is contradiction that one states Jesus stayed in Jerusalem for a year, and the other that he stayed a day. That pretty much proves in itself that not everything in the bible is right, so if something that meaningless is wrong whats to say anything else isn't?

 

Christianity in my view and I realise this is gonna sound really contriversal. But historically speaking as thats the shizzle im into is ideologically so far ahead of the game in the way humans treat each other that it is extrodoniary. I mean liberalism which is our current system only goes half way to what christianity ultimetly offers, it preaches dont do anything bad to anyone else wheras christianity asks you to love your enemy.

 

Ok, Christianity tells people to be nice ot each other. Fantastic. So a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit of a magical tree?

 

The question of whether science can explain the beginning of the universe is not affected by the question of whether the existence of God can explain it.

 

I never said it was; but God has to come from somewhere, and you can't state where that is any more than I can state what caused the big bang. And theres a hell of a lot more evidence for the big bang theory if you discount one fictional book.

 

I believe that God can explain it, but even if you don't accept that opinion, that doesn't then mean that science must therefore have the explanation. You've created a false dilemma. Your problem is that you see 'science' and God as two mutually exclusive concepts, which is not the case. As we see again, you are creating a false dilemma, implying that a choice must be made between the two. This is fallacious.

 

I never said Science has an explaination. As I said earlier, the origins of our universe is beyond human comprehension, and instead of striving for the truth like many people are doing (coming up with theories and attempting to prove them) religious people take the easy option and accept some story written 2000 years ago.

 

I also don't understand how you say science is the most realistic explanation. What do you mean by 'science'? Because scientists tell us that a millisecond after the Big Bang is as far back as we can empirically observe - all preceding events are purely speculation. It's as if you're putting your faith in the authority of some monolithic entity called 'science' which must surely possess the answers, rather than any substantial answers themselves.

 

I'm putting my faith in the evidence left on our good Earth, rather than a story written 2000 years ago.

 

If you want the philosophical perspective of 'what made God?' - the answer is that God by definition is a necessary being. Unlike all material things, God therefore depends on nothing else for God's existence - he exists necessarily. God is therefore outside of the causal network of the universe and time itself. Metaphysically it's completely valid. I think we struggle to understand the idea because our concept of God is mistaken - we wrongly conceive of God as an anthropomorphic, physical being.

Yes but how do you fundamentally explain the observations themselves and the causes of them? Ultimately you have to go back to the laws of physics.

 

Ok then. The big bang just was. It just happened and created our earth. Same way god did. You can't deny that anymore than I can deny yours.

 

My whole point was showing the irrationality of atheism, and how it involves a leap of faith.

 

Hahahahahaha, are you serious? Do you actually comprehend what you just said?

 

I mean, I could just as easily turn your arguments around against atheism:

 

Is there any evidence that God does not exist? No. Therefore God exists.

 

It's an invalid argument, just like saying 'there is no evidence for God, therefore God does not exist' is an invalid argument. It's arguing from ignorance.

So where does our morality come from?

 

Is there any evidence that gay marriage is wrong? No, so why is it then prohibited by your so called "morals"?

 

To be honest this post has just made me even more sure;Christians are idiots. And I say this coming from a Catholic family, half of which originates from Ireland and the other half from Glasgow. I support Celtic.

 

But Christians are idiots.

[Haden]

Things may well have taken place, indeed I believe there is proof that a man named Jesus Christ lived 2008 years ago. That doesn't mean he was the son of "God".

 

Hmm not sure if this will work I will tryn and answer within the quote. Your right on that point.

 

And just as many prophecies didn't come true. It's the same as the starsigns argument - if something is broad enough it's bound to come true at some point.

 

Quite a large number did and some of it was very specific most people thought Jesus would be a revolutionary fighter but no bible prophets said that.

 

I do believe I read somewhere that in two different sections of the bible - two of the disciples gospels - there is contradiction that one states Jesus stayed in Jerusalem for a year, and the other that he stayed a day. That pretty much proves in itself that not everything in the bible is right, so if something that meaningless is wrong whats to say anything else isn't?

 

What part is that? I dont not believe you id just like to have a look at it.

 

Ok, Christianity tells people to be nice ot each other. Fantastic. So a cosmic jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force present in humanity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat the fruit of a magical tree?

 

Its not just being nice to each other its loving your enemy which 2000 years of "progress" I mean look at the world from Trisha to the Israel Palestine situation if the new testement was followed the world would be much better.

 

I never said it was; but God has to come from somewhere, and you can't state where that is any more than I can state what caused the big bang. And theres a hell of a lot more evidence for the big bang theory if you discount one fictional book.

 

 

 

I never said Science has an explaination. As I said earlier, the origins of our universe is beyond human comprehension, and instead of striving for the truth like many people are doing (coming up with theories and attempting to prove them) religious people take the easy option and accept some story written 2000 years ago.

 

 

 

I'm putting my faith in the evidence left on our good Earth, rather than a story written 2000 years ago.

 

 

 

Ok then. The big bang just was. It just happened and created our earth. Same way god did. You can't deny that anymore than I can deny yours.

 

 

 

Hahahahahaha, are you serious? Do you actually comprehend what you just said?

 

 

 

Is there any evidence that gay marriage is wrong? No, so why is it then prohibited by your so called "morals"?

 

To be honest this post has just made me even more sure;Christians are idiots. And I say this coming from a Catholic family, half of which originates from Ireland and the other half from Glasgow. I support Celtic.

 

But Christians are idiots.

 

This comment untrue and insulting

 

Ah shit that didnt work damnit

 

Sorry I tried to answer some of this stuff I will bold my points later its basically only the first three points I answer as they are mine and the last bit is as well.

 

-- Would discourage it, but there is freedom of choice to decide.

 

-- No one deserves the death penalty. There is the right to life.

 

-- If you don't believe that everyone has the right to life, or the right to freedom of choice, then we can't be friends. Simple as that. Those are basics.

 

Indigo: We can't claim them to be objective because nothing is. But they're as close to objective as we're going to get. It is hard to explain, I grant you that. To say it is purely for the operation of society is cold. For me, it is human feeling. It is what I want for everyone like me. So, emotional. And therefore chemical.

 

It has nothing to do with God, or religion. The fact that we live in a chaotic, meaningless universe is a problem we have to overcome, not explain away. And to start with granting life to everyone, based on equality at birth, is appropriate.

 

There is a point where you put your foot down and say these are our standards, we the voice of the educated and the rational and the reasoned.

 

So when would abortion be bad or is it always ok? I mean time periods.

 

So are you a pacifist I still dont know your issue on war?

 

On the human feeling part good human feelings are gained from some people by wanking over 10 year old girls or worse. Whats wrong with this if anything its none of your buisness or do you stop it just because it makes you feel bad? I mean surely at the end of the day if morality is just an impulse of bad and good feelings its just you being selfish anyway. You see something that makes you sad thats been programmed into you for your survival so you do something about it for your need.

[Gizmo]

What part is that? I dont not believe you id just like to have a look at it.

 

I don't particularly know what exact part of the bible it states it, but you might want to have a look at this webpage:

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/contradictions.html

 

A couple of favourites from reading the first few on the page:

 

GE 1:11-12, 26-27 Trees were created before man was created.

GE 2:4-9 Man was created before trees were created.

 

GE 1:20-21, 26-27 Birds were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before birds were created.

 

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.

GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

 

GE 1:26-27 Man and woman were created at the same time.

 

GE 4:9 God asks Cain where his brother Able is.

PR 15:3, JE 16:17, 23:24-25, HE 4:13 God is everywhere. He sees everything. Nothing is hidden from his view.

 

GE 11:7-9 God sows discord.

PR 6:16-19 God hates anyone who sows discord.

[Haver]

So when would abortion be bad or is it always ok? I mean time periods.

 

So are you a pacifist I still dont know your issue on war?

 

On the human feeling part good human feelings are gained from some people by wanking over 10 year old girls or worse. Whats wrong with this if anything its none of your buisness or do you stop it just because it makes you feel bad? I mean surely at the end of the day if morality is just an impulse of bad and good feelings its just you being selfish anyway. You see something that makes you sad thats been programmed into you for your survival so you do something about it for your need.

 

-- First one is a medical question that I'm not qualified to answer. Whatever the consensus medical standard is now, that's the number of weeks.

 

-- Just as you have the right to life you have to right to sacrifice your life, as in World War 1 and 2, where Our Boys fought for your right to life, and your right to freedom of choice. I would recommend that you visit the stretches of graves in France and then try to argue for moral relativism.

 

-- Conscription, however, is an infringement of freedom of choice. You have the right to not fight.

 

-- The child's right to freedom of choice is infringed in all circumstances, so it is not OK.

 

-- Well that's the ultra-rationalist school. But I disagree with them. It is something more than that, this desire for equality. It is ultimately chemical, of course.

[Chris the great]

ok, self sacrafice transends survival of the fittest, its survival of the species. get between a mother duck and her eggs and your going home with battle scars. potential self sacrafice there.

 

last year, some one got a video of wilderbeast attacking lions to save a member of their herd. easily could have died, but protected each outher. its mutual insurance, protect outhers and your protected, or die so the species may live. humans arnt the only species doing it, its not evidence of our own divinity.

 

war is not always wrong, fighting to defend your home and freedoms is in my eyes fine.

 

the reason i can condem the morals of hitler is that they were being forced upon outhers. my morality may not be perfect, but it dosent hurt outhers.

 

the bible says its ok to take slaves from boardering lands, and that its ok too hit a slave so hard they die.

 

in the story of jobe, god ruins a mans life, kills his family and gets all smug about it to win a bet with satan. hows that for morals?

 

we, as humans have many cultures, most disscourage killing, yet their was no bible. either god wired us all up to follow his morality, making the bible pointless, or all the different governing rules, many being religions, were set up to stop us destroying our selves. belive what you will. personaly, i think people are inherantly good, not through god but from personal choice mixed with evolution. with higher brain function, we can feel empathy and shame. we then make decisions based on these feelings. they exist to protect us, but our minds make them more, that we desire to know we do good.

[weeyellowbloke]

Hmmm, where does morality come from? If a lion kills an antelope to feed its cubs is it morally wrong? Or do lions not count because that's part of nature and somehow humans are beyond nature? Is nature just here, created for our benifit? Things just happen. There is no moral standard except the one you, and too some extent society, set. Was Genghis Khan wrong to do the things he did? I mean he had no concept of modern Western values, of biblical scripture, of human rights. He grew up in dog-eat-dog society in which you had to fight and kill to survive. Can we then look back and still call him a barbarian?

 

I just find it hard to believe that God is the moral standard and has set all our moral compasses so that if you go against him you are morally wrong. I feel this due to God's own moral standards being confused. At some points he's saying "Lay the sins of the parents upon the children-even children the third or forth generations of those who reject me", the next he's saying "Parents are not responsible for the sins children nor children the sins of the parents. Those deserving to die must be put to death for their own sins". Then it's "the Lord showers compassion on all his creation" the next it's "I, myself, have risen against Babylon! I will destroy its children and its children's children" and "I will smash them against one another, even parents against chilren, says the Lord. I will not let pity or mercy or compassion keep me from destroying them". Even Jesus Goes a little morally askew at times, such as telling a Canaanite women who is begging for help "Is it right to take the food from the children and throw it to the dogs". It's only when she reminds him, with his own slightly offensive imagery, that "Even the dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their master's table" that he agrees to help her. So how can such contrasting morals be used as any kind of standard?

[Indigo]

I never said it was; but God has to come from somewhere, and you can't state where that is any more than I can state what caused the big bang. And theres a hell of a lot more evidence for the big bang theory if you discount one fictional book.

What are you talking about? Try reading my posts properly, rather than selectively skimming them for sentiment to feed your anti-theist prejudices.

 

Theists accept the Big Bang theory. As I've said many times, the Big Bang is not a damn explanation for the existence of the universe, because it is part of the universe itself.

I never said Science has an explaination. As I said earlier, the origins of our universe is beyond human comprehension, and instead of striving for the truth like many people are doing (coming up with theories and attempting to prove them) religious people take the easy option and accept some story written 2000 years ago.

Believing in Jesus as the Son of God has little to do with the origins of the universe. Undoubtedly it will influence your beliefs in the origins of the universe, but positing God as an explanation for the universe doesn't entail then accepting a religion.

 

Personally I do accept Christianity. I find the historicity of the gospels to be truly reliable. This though has little bearing for this debate and on our question of whether God exists. I'd gladly have a debate with you about specific Christianity issues - but my post you replied to was plainly and simply about the existence of God. It seems all you're doing is changing the subject to try and undermine my argument.

I'm putting my faith in the evidence left on our good Earth, rather than a story written 2000 years ago.

What evidence is there on this earth for an atheistic explanation of the universe? I'd surely like to see it. Again you're trying to distract us from the issue at hand. Questioning the Bible does not equate to question God's existence.

Ok then. The big bang just was. It just happened and created our earth. Same way god did. You can't deny that anymore than I can deny yours.

Like I say, the Big Bang is part of the universe. Scientific reasoning is based on explaining something by pointing to a cause outside of the thing you are attempting to explain. God is clearly not part of the universe - therefore, unlike the Big Bang, God is a valid explanation. Now that doesn't mean that God is in fact true, but what I'm demonstrating is that God is a potential explanation whereas the Big Bang is not.

Hahahahahaha, are you serious? Do you actually comprehend what you just said?

I am serious. There's a reason agnosticism is the majority position amongst philosophers.

Is there any evidence that gay marriage is wrong? No, so why is it then prohibited by your so called "morals"?

What the hell? I was giving an example of a logically invalid argument, known as Argument from Ignorance. And then you go and borrow that invalid structure for trying to argue for an issue quite irrelevant to this debate. You really don't read my posts properly.

To be honest this post has just made me even more sure;Christians are idiots. And I say this coming from a Catholic family, half of which originates from Ireland and the other half from Glasgow. I support Celtic.

 

But Christians are idiots.

I'm not sure how my post left such an impression considering you hardly seemed to read it. I think what your reply demonstrates is that you didn't make much attempt to understand my argument or to actually come to grips with the real issues of the debate. You saw I was arguing against atheism, you made a few irrelevant points against my argument, and then resorted to lazy and prejudiced ad hominem attacks. Brilliant.

[Haver]

Atheism, of course, is disbelief. Let us be clear on that. The onus is not on us.

[Haden]

-- First one is a medical question that I'm not qualified to answer. Whatever the consensus medical standard is now, that's the number of weeks.

 

-- Just as you have the right to life you have to right to sacrifice your life, as in World War 1 and 2, where Our Boys fought for your right to life, and your right to freedom of choice. I would recommend that you visit the stretches of graves in France and then try to argue for moral relativism.

 

-- Conscription, however, is an infringement of freedom of choice. You have the right to not fight.

 

-- The child's right to freedom of choice is infringed in all circumstances, so it is not OK.

 

-- Well that's the ultra-rationalist school. But I disagree with them. It is something more than that, this desire for equality. It is ultimately chemical, of course.

 

ok, self sacrafice transends survival of the fittest, its survival of the species. get between a mother duck and her eggs and your going home with battle scars. potential self sacrafice there.

 

last year, some one got a video of wilderbeast attacking lions to save a member of their herd. easily could have died, but protected each outher. its mutual insurance, protect outhers and your protected, or die so the species may live. humans arnt the only species doing it, its not evidence of our own divinity.

 

war is not always wrong, fighting to defend your home and freedoms is in my eyes fine.

 

the reason i can condem the morals of hitler is that they were being forced upon outhers. my morality may not be perfect, but it dosent hurt outhers.

 

the bible says its ok to take slaves from boardering lands, and that its ok too hit a slave so hard they die.

 

in the story of jobe, god ruins a mans life, kills his family and gets all smug about it to win a bet with satan. hows that for morals?

 

we, as humans have many cultures, most disscourage killing, yet their was no bible. either god wired us all up to follow his morality, making the bible pointless, or all the different governing rules, many being religions, were set up to stop us destroying our selves. belive what you will. personaly, i think people are inherantly good, not through god but from personal choice mixed with evolution. with higher brain function, we can feel empathy and shame. we then make decisions based on these feelings. they exist to protect us, but our minds make them more, that we desire to know we do good.

 

Wowzar loads of stuff haha I better do an essay soon but I enjoy this more damn N europe.

 

Havers points first. I believe your the one who subscried to moral subjectivity somewhere along the line? I certianly wouldnt disrespect the graves of French WW1 or WW2 soliders.

 

On the abortion thing if it isnt certian thats kinda scary no I mean what if it changes would all ones before this change now be considered murder?

 

I asked was it ok for the dad to murder is that a no? It is his natural instincts telling him to beat the hell out of the guy raping his kid.

 

To Chris the Great. The Good Samaritan story is self sacrifice but in the complete opposite of the circumstances you talk about. It would be like a lion defending the wilderbeast!

 

On the hitler thing. So if he didnt go to war or imprison people his morals would be ok?

 

Lastly the slave thing Christianity follows two rules love your neighbour and love god it isnt for slavery in Britian the abolishionist movement had a huge christian influence as did the opposition to child labour at the time.

 

Atheism, of course, is disbelief. Let us be clear on that. The onus is not on us.

 

You do have to make some claims though that nature is either infinite or somehow self creating.

[Chris the great]

the good samaritin isnt like the lion defending the wilderbeast, as both men were still human and geneticaly linked.

 

if hitler hadnt acted on his morals, id just view him as a biggot, under freedom of speech, i can have no objection too that. however, by acting, he is then causing harm. that i can take offence too.

 

i hope i dont get my morals from god. all pain, suffering and death comes from eve eating an apple. asside from the fact she had no knowlage of right/wrong before eating it(so didnt know it was wrong to do so) god is excessive. totaly busts a bollock over an apple. it leads to questions as to why he stored the knowlage of good and evil in an apple, and why leave it near them. if i left one of my swords out while there were kids in my house id be called irresponsibe.

 

later, the romans crucify god/his son. he dosent do much about it. if i was god i'd have come down with spartan raptor hybrids and let my wrath be felt.

 

what type of message is that? "you can kill my son, but don't you dare touch my fucking apples!"

[Gizmo]

What are you talking about? Try reading my posts properly, rather than selectively skimming them for sentiment to feed your anti-theist prejudices.

 

Do the same yourself? You have skimmed my posts quite considerably.

 

Theists accept the Big Bang theory. As I've said many times, the Big Bang is not a damn explanation for the existence of the universe, because it is part of the universe itself.

 

But god created the wind and the light and the Earth in 7 days, right?

 

Believing in Jesus as the Son of God has little to do with the origins of the universe. Undoubtedly it will influence your beliefs in the origins of the universe, but positing God as an explanation for the universe doesn't entail then accepting a religion.

 

I'm arguing here specifically with Christianity in mind, which you would have noticed if you hadn't "skimmed through" my posts. And with that in mind, if I did not accept Jesus as the son of God then I would be going against the bible and therefore could not accept God.

 

Personally I do accept Christianity. I find the historicity of the gospels to be truly reliable. This though has little bearing for this debate and on our question of whether God exists. I'd gladly have a debate with you about specific Christianity issues - but my post you replied to was plainly and simply about the existence of God. It seems all you're doing is changing the subject to try and undermine my argument.

 

You find the gospels accurate? Read my last post, please. Stop skimming through.

 

What evidence is there on this earth for an atheistic explanation of the universe? I'd surely like to see it. Again you're trying to distract us from the issue at hand. Questioning the Bible does not equate to question God's existence.

 

Fossils, Dinosaurs, evolutionary proof?

 

 

Like I say, the Big Bang is part of the universe. Scientific reasoning is based on explaining something by pointing to a cause outside of the thing you are attempting to explain. God is clearly not part of the universe - therefore, unlike the Big Bang, God is a valid explanation. Now that doesn't mean that God is in fact true, but what I'm demonstrating is that God is a potential explanation whereas the Big Bang is not.

 

The Big Bang is not a potential explaination of the origins of the Universe?

 

I'm not even going to bother.

 

 

 

I am serious. There's a reason agnosticism is the majority position amongst philosophers.

 

Why is this revelant?

 

What the hell? I was giving an example of a logically invalid argument, known as Argument from Ignorance. And then you go and borrow that invalid structure for trying to argue for an issue quite irrelevant to this debate. You really don't read my posts properly.

 

I was using your invalididty structure to demonstrate something on the topic touched upon earlier in ths thread, I'm sorry that I didn't bother to quote where it was mentioned before. Perhaps if you hadn't skimmed though the topic you would have noticed.

 

I'm not sure how my post left such an impression considering you hardly seemed to read it. I think what your reply demonstrates is that you didn't make much attempt to understand my argument or to actually come to grips with the real issues of the debate. You saw I was arguing against atheism, you made a few irrelevant points against my argument, and then resorted to lazy and prejudiced ad hominem attacks. Brilliant.

 

From what I can tell you've read less than me. You saw I was arguing against Christianity, made irrelevant points against my argument, and then ignored half of what I posted. Brilliant.

[The fish]

if hitler hadnt acted on his morals, id just view him as a biggot, under freedom of speech, i can have no objection too that. however, by acting, he is then causing harm. that i can take offence too.

 

Why can't you object to it? I object to the Archbishop of Tanzania saying condoms give people aids...

[ipaul]

Why can't you object to it? I object to the Archbishop of Tanzania saying condoms give people aids...

 

That is one of the most retarded things I have ever heard in my life and for a change it wasn't from GWB Condoms don't give people AIDS, I do.

 

Just thought I'd put my two cents in here, though I have barely read through all this as there is too much just on the past page alone for me to bother with. I have now decided I hate religion, it does nothing but causes trouble and instills unfounded faith in people that their life has some meaning at the end of it all. I don't mind if people are christian/muslim or whatever, but true followers of organised religion, the ignorant ones, irritate me so much. In my opinion, Religion was something used in the past to make up for our lack of scientific knowledge and although we still have alot to learn, I think I can safely say that I think Religion is unfounded bull. Also strong christians/muslims/hindus etc who attack Scientology: why? When it comes down to it, Scientology is just the same as any other religion in many ways, just a bit newer thats all.

[Chris the great]

now the aids thing is wrong, a country with little access to the correct information such as tanzania gets much information from church, this makes it harmful.

 

religion was not just used to fill gaps in science, its also handy for keeping the peace. in olden days, the law keepers had a harder time keeping crime in check. using a system were people feared the consiquences of law breaking helped keep the peace. theres also keeping people content to toil in the feilds and die in war as when they die, they go to heaven for etearnity. oh, and the church pulled in a lot of money.

 

even though im not christian, i try to live my life according to a bible verse "do untoo outhers as you would have them do untoo you" if that single verse was taken up by everyone, the world would be a better place. maybe.

[ipaul]

Perhaps in olden days, but then we have a somewhat established moral code nowadays that most people follow. I really don't think Religion really does anyone any good anymore, no matter how useful it may have been in some ways in the past. I agree with your point on the verse from the bible, but I have always just thought that to be common sense and not a religious teaching as such. I certainly did not learn it from the bible =/

[Chris the great]

Perhaps in olden days, but then we have a somewhat established moral code nowadays that most people follow. I really don't think Religion really does anyone any good anymore, no matter how useful it may have been in some ways in the past. I agree with your point on the verse from the bible, but I have always just thought that to be common sense and not a religious teaching as such. I certainly did not learn it from the bible =/

 

agree totaly, i was just raising the point of why rekigion was so big. religion served its purpouse, if people are comforted by it then keep using it, but dont explode your self about it.

 

also, that verse was my juniour school's motto, taught to me by mr shrayne, a man i realive now was truely wise and just.

[Indigo]

I'm arguing here specifically with Christianity in mind, which you would have noticed if you hadn't "skimmed through" my posts. And with that in mind, if I did not accept Jesus as the son of God then I would be going against the bible and therefore could not accept God.

Well if you were, why did you address your argument in reply to me, who wasn't even arguing with Christianity in mind?

You find the gospels accurate? Read my last post, please. Stop skimming through.

You made no point about the historicity of the gospels in the post you addressed to me.

Fossils, Dinosaurs, evolutionary proof?

All part of the universe. Can't explain the universe with reference to things within it.

The Big Bang is not a potential explaination of the origins of the Universe?

See above.

From what I can tell you've read less than me. You saw I was arguing against Christianity, made irrelevant points against my argument, and then ignored half of what I posted. Brilliant.

No, it was you who clearly made the initial mistake. I was arguing for the existence of God (or at least the deficiency of atheism) and you quoted my argument and then attempted to refute my points by loosely arguing against Christianity. Then you concluded that I was an 'idiot'.

 

Trying to mimic my response doesn't somehow give you credibility. The fact is you've barely raised any valid objections to what I've said - instead you fail to understand my arguments and resort to criticising a caricature of Christianity. Then when I point out that what you're saying is obviously irrelevant to my argument, or is a misunderstanding of my argument, you then claim that actually it is me that is misunderstanding you.

 

I suppose that's what you get for trying to argue philosophy on a Nintendo message board.