Oh My f**king God America... What The Hell Is Wrong With You?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Example, if Joe is claiming that he has witnessed "miracle healings", would it not be more credible to quiz him on this point and ask for details or justification rather than just saying "well that's rubbish because they just don't happen", in a critical context, both are just as weak as each other as it boils down to being your word against his word.

The thing is I've already been through this in Dave's 'Hardcore Christian' thread where it was discussed to death and Joe told us of the 'miracles' he had witnessed which, from what I remember, were quite clearly fake and set up by the Christian camp he was at to aid in the 'brain washing'... I know what you're saying and as an engineer and scientist I tend not to deal with highly structured debates when I reply (I try to deal in facts and real evidence which, in the case of the Bible, there ain't much) but I can see how that can be read by those of you who do, yourself and Bejus being the obvious two who spring to mind.

So yeah, I think we've covered a lot of the evidence and open-mindedness which has to exist in science in support of the theory of Evolution, the Big Bang theory and everything else in past topics and I really can't be bothered to retype it all or drag it back up for one lost-cause Christian. Likewise in that other thread it was fairly well shown that there is pretty much zero evidence for anything in the Bible being even remotely likely, except for maybe the existence of a dude called Bejus (Brian?) who may have existed and inadvertently stood up for his people.

It all comes bac kto FeS and winged giraffes if I remember correctly...

Oh yeah, and in other news LOLZ.

[anzo]

There are a lot of questions of how and why we came to be and what, if anything, is keeping it all intact. Whilst there are a lot of theories out there, that's all they are, theories.

The big bang for example, for the big bang to occur, there had to be something before that - even if it's just a collection of atoms, it was something....what was there before the atoms? It's a complete mystery and when you really think about it, it's pretty mind blowing.

I think only until recently can we deny a God. With such massive advancement on science we've only scratched the surface, but it's given us hard evidence to a lot of things which would have otherwise been deemed as the work of god. Evolution is fact. There is no argument in that, the scientific evidence is massive - meaning the only way you can deny such evidence is if you're deeply religious and you're then claiming facts to be fiction.

I'm a little annoyed this thread has turned into a 'you're wrong I'm right' argument on both sides - neither of which has any sort of evidence for the argument. I'm not religious, but I don't have any problem with people being religious.

I would prefer scienctific evidence for things, although there are somethings that science will never understand or explain; and to be honest, I think an explaination of how the world happened would be a depressing one. Don't you think it would be nice to think we serve a purpose on this world and we're not just here on the breeze waiting to die?

I close with a quote from Simon Amstell on Never Mind the Buzzcocks; "From all of us here, whichever religion you are, remember, only one can be right, so...let's have a war! Happy Christmas!"

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Don't you think it would be nice to think we serve a purpose on this world and we're not just here on the breeze waiting to die?

It would be nice... in a way. However, to have a purpose we would then simply be puppets playing out some charade for the designer of that purpose.

With regards what we are, I'll leave you with a quote from the master philosopher Agentius Smithus; "Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet." Amen brother.

[Joe O'Connor]

To joe, what church are you a member of?

I am part of the Baptist Church.

[Al_Fel]

I am part of the Baptist Church.

What would you consider a miracle?

[Danny Swindlehurst]

all i can say at that is... LOL

[beigemaster]

It would be nice... in a way. However, to have a purpose we would then simply be puppets playing out some charade for the designer of that purpose.

But isn't that based on the presumption of a creator not allowing humans any free will? If you were God, you could solve almost all of the world's problems if you made your creations mindless robots without the capacity of freewill or independent thought. You would then have puppets playing the perfect play, with no problems at all. Question is whether that would be better than a world where free will, creativity and reason are possible.

[JD™]

But isn't that based on the presumption of a creator not allowing humans any free will? If you were God, you could solve almost all of the world's problems if you made your creations mindless robots without the capacity of freewill or independent thought. You would then have puppets playing the perfect play, with no problems at all. Question is whether that would be better than a world where free will, creativity and reason are possible.

With free will, creativity and reason we also know about control and oppression. If we were controlled and oppressed from the beginning, being Gods puppets, we wouldn't know any different; so in a way it would be 'better' by definition. If you're taking part in the perfect play then by definition you and your surroundings must also be perfect, right?

Obviously, looking at it from our perspective of free will, creativity and reason it would be clear that we value these things far higher than world peace and a lack of suffering. These things, to me, are of far higher importance than the odd bit of bickering between world powers - God or no God.

[Al_Fel]

But isn't that based on the presumption of a creator not allowing humans any free will? If you were God, you could solve almost all of the world's problems if you made your creations mindless robots without the capacity of freewill or independent thought. You would then have puppets playing the perfect play, with no problems at all. Question is whether that would be better than a world where free will, creativity and reason are possible.

So, are you saying we are here for God's entertainment?

You seem like a really intelligent person but I get the feeling you like making a point of that any chance you get and telling other people they are not intelligent. Can I ask you a few questions I'll be happy with yes or no answers for now.

Do you believe we were created by god?

Do you accept Evolution is a fact?

Do you believe in the Devil?

Do you accept we as humans have evolved over millions of years from a collection of matter?

In my mind I can picture a single cell developing in a pool of water and dividing into more and more cells getting more and more complicated gradually over time.

I really can't imagine a supreme being clicking his fingers and people popping into existence.

I'm very sure we are not here for a reason and I'm sure there is nothing after life.

To me the bible is just a book that's been chopped and changed over thousands of years. I think anyone that lives their life using this book as a guide need to step back and consider that times change.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

telling other people they are not intelligent.

It's ok, I don't mind... :'(

[beigemaster]

1. So, are you saying we are here for God's entertainment?

You seem like a really intelligent person but I get the feeling you like making a point of that any chance you get and telling other people they are not intelligent. Can I ask you a few questions I'll be happy with yes or no answers for now.

2.Do you believe we were created by god?

3.Do you accept Evolution is a fact?

4.Do you believe in the Devil?

5.Do you accept we as humans have evolved over millions of years from a collection of matter?

1- No I don't think we are hence having the ability to be independent, this was the distinction that I was trying to make. A common argument is to say "well we're all just here for God the puppet master" ect. However, I was suggesting that if that was the case then surely a God wouldn't give the creatures the ability to reject him. If I am watching a film, I don't suddenly expect the characters to suddenly turn around at me and tell me they don't want to do anything else.

I get the feeling you like making a point of that any chance you get and telling other people they are not intelligent.

I apologise if that's the impression I give off as it's not my intention. There are a lot of intelligent people on here and it's great to have dialogue. However, for a good discussion to happen, you have to have coherent beliefs and valid arguments backed by justification. I don't want to call people out on if they are right or wrong, but if you try and swing a bad argument then, yes, I will point it out. It so happens that the majority of these bad arguments are from the likes of creationists which is why rational people get so frustrated with them. However, I'm not going to go with double standards and if there are bad arguments on the other side then they also need modification.

2. Yes

3. Yes (although "fact" in the scientific inductive sense which can by definition never be concrete)

4. I believe that evil is some type of force because that logically must cohere with my belief in objective good. Whether this is an actual spiritual being I'm not sure, it certainly wouldn't be the stereotypical idea of the devil with hoofs, horns and a triton.

5. Yes, but isn't that the same as question 2?

[Al_Fel]

So you think God made it so we would evolve? Why does it say God created us in his own image then?

Do you think its possible that there is no God and we just happened?

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

it certainly wouldn't be the stereotypical idea of the devil with hoofs, horns and a triton.

You're absolutely right. Satan would ride an Inspired.

To beigemaster- you say you believe we were created by God... do you mean that in a Christian sense or in the sense of a 'first cause'?

[beigemaster]

1.So you think God made it so we would evolve? Why does it say God created us in his own image then?

2.Do you think its possible that there is no God and we just happened?

1. Very good question. For the sake of argument, let's imagine a God exists and evolution is fact. To use an analogy, is a foetus an adult? Does it have the capacity for independent thought or self reflection, is it the image of its parents? I would argue no for all those questions. However, it does have the potential to 'evolve' into that state, given the correct time and external factors. I'm not saying this analogy is entirely reflective of the evolution of man, but it does highlight some of the key ideas. Going back to some of the ideas I was talking about before with having a perfect world with creatures with no independence from their creator, I think the same kind of idea could apply to this situation. To me, it seems somehow more disappointing if I knew that mankind suddenly sprang into existence rather than the on going remarkable process of evolution.

2. Yes, I do think it's possible.

you say you believe we were created by God... do you mean that in a Christian sense or in the sense of a 'first cause'?

Although I think the arguments based on the first cause principle are very compelling, I will happily admit that they do not justify the God of Christianity with the various character traits and properties that people assume with a deity. Therefore, to try and justify the Christian God on first cause principle is a bit of a dead loss. However, if you conclude that the first cause argument causes justification to a necessary being (one that is independent of causality) then this opens the door to further enquiry about the nature of that being. From my own personal journey, I believe in the principles of a Christian God (although again, probably caricatured by the majority of people, i.e big white beard, sits of a throne ect). However, I don't think I am at the end of that journey and therefore I may change my mind or opinion if any new evidence contradicted my reasoning.

To put it simply, IF you believe in a Christian based God THEN you must accept the principle of reason and therefore, by definition, your beliefs may change if reason leads you down a different path.

If any of that makes sense?

[Revolver]

[beigemaster]

Ha, love the irony though of the "causes a lack of objective reasoning" from a secular/post modern understanding of a world view that has doesn't believe in objective reasoning/objective morality.

Edited February 6, 2010 by beigemaster

[Al_Fel]

1. Very good question. For the sake of argument, let's imagine a God exists and evolution is fact. To use an analogy, is a foetus an adult? Does it have the capacity for independent thought or self reflection, is it the image of its parents? I would argue no for all those questions. However, it does have the potential to 'evolve' into that state, given the correct time and external factors. I'm not saying this analogy is entirely reflective of the evolution of man, but it does highlight some of the key ideas. Going back to some of the ideas I was talking about before with having a perfect world with creatures with no independence from their creator, I think the same kind of idea could apply to this situation. To me, it seems somehow more disappointing if I knew that mankind suddenly sprang into existence rather than the on going remarkable process of evolution.

2. Yes, I do think it's possible.

Although I think the arguments based on the first cause principle are very compelling, I will happily admit that they do not justify the God of Christianity with the various character traits and properties that people assume with a deity. Therefore, to try and justify the Christian God on first cause principle is a bit of a dead loss. However, if you conclude that the first cause argument causes justification to a necessary being (one that is independent of causality) then this opens the door to further enquiry about the nature of that being. From my own personal journey, I believe in the principles of a Christian God (although again, probably caricatured by the majority of people, i.e big white beard, sits of a throne ect). However, I don't think I am at the end of that journey and therefore I may change my mind or opinion if any new evidence contradicted my reasoning.

To put it simply, IF you believe in a Christian based God THEN you must accept the principle of reason and therefore, by definition, your beliefs may change if reason leads you down a different path.

If any of that makes sense?

From what you've just said, to me it seems like you believe in God but only pick and choose the bits of the bible that make sense to you and mix it with science and fact. That's like saying you support a football team but only when they are winning.

If God created man then who created God? If God doesn't have a creator then surely its possible that man doesn't have a creator.

Bit of a hard question to answer but why does it make sense to you that the bible is right and there is a God?

I'm going to tell you why Science makes sense to me and why I don't think there is a God.

It's possible for virtually anything to happen, there's a chance something could fall from the sky and hit me in the head right now. I can 100% guarantee that wont happen because the chances are sooooooo small of it happening and even smaller of it happening just after I've spoken about it is not worth thinking about. The funny thing is though chance is random so although for most of the time you can predict things and be correct, sometimes things go wrong. The thought of there being a God in any sense of the word to me is ridiculous. Everything is just here in the universe, there's no reason for it and there doesn't have to be. There are a lot of religions from all over the world and most of them are very similar. All of them are out of date and most of the stuff in them doesn't apply to life today. For me using the bible to live your life today is like using 2 sticks to start a fire. It can be done but there's a better way of doing it. I'm not saying using sticks to start fires is useless. It's a very important skill that should be kept alive but its not practical. I'm trying to say Bibles should be studies for what they are, a part of history.

I'm going to leave it at that because I'm babbling on. I've never been good at getting my thoughts into words and structuring it properly so sorry if that doesn't make any sense. If anyone wants to help me out and show me how that should have been structured feel free to do so I'd be grateful of the lesson.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

To put it simply, IF you believe in a Christian based God THEN you must accept the principle of reason and therefore, by definition, your beliefs may change if reason leads you down a different path.

If any of that makes sense?

Not really . In my mind IF you believe in a Christian based God THEN you have accepted the teachings and story of the Bible and have therefore ignored the principle of logic and reasoning... By definition your beliefs cannot change without moving away from believing in a Christian God and accepting more logical, reasonable beliefs.

That's not meant to be a sarcastic response to your post by the way, just using your post as a base to put my version of events across.

[beigemaster]

1. From what you've just said, to me it seems like you believe in God but only pick and choose the bits of the bible that make sense to you and mix it with science and fact. That's like saying you support a football team but only when they are

winning.

2. If God created man then who created God? If God doesn't have a creator then surely its possible that man doesn't have a creator.

3. Bit of a hard question to answer but why does it make sense to you that the bible is right and there is a God?

I'm going to tell you why Science makes sense to me and why I don't think there is a God.

It's possible for virtually anything to happen, there's a chance something could fall from the sky and hit me in the head right now. I can 100% guarantee that wont happen because the chances are sooooooo small of it happening and even smaller of it happening just after I've spoken about it is not worth thinking about. The funny thing is though chance is random so although for most of the time you can predict things and be correct, sometimes things go wrong. The thought of there being a God in any sense of the word to me is ridiculous. Everything is just here in the universe, there's no reason for it and there doesn't have to be. There are a lot of religions from all over the world and most of them are very similar. All of them are out of date and most of the stuff in them doesn't apply to life today. For me using the bible to live your life today is like using 2 sticks to start a fire. It can be done but there's a better way of doing it. I'm not saying using sticks to start fires is useless. It's a very important skill that should be kept alive but its not practical. I'm trying to say Bibles should be studies for what they are, a part of history.

I'm going to leave it at that because I'm babbling on. I've never been good at getting my thoughts into words and structuring it properly so sorry if that doesn't make any sense. If anyone wants to help me out and show me how that should have been structured feel free to do so I'd be grateful of the lesson.

I think that all makes perfect sense, but I’ll just break it up a bit so it’s easier to answer.

1. I could see why it may seem like that especially if you have a black and white view of religion/bible versus science. However, I don’t see why they can’t be entirely compatible, especially when you read the history or the philosophy of science. Originally, the art of science was driven by the assumption that a rational being had created a universe with various degrees of contingent rational/predictable laws that the human mind can discover. Science is a descriptive tool and useful tool, it can tell us all about the material world, but for normative questions such as “is there anything outside the physical world?” then there is no point addressing science, you need to look at philosophy or religion.

Therefore, if it looks like I agree with bits of science and bits of religions, that is because they are looking at different questions, I wouldn’t read the Bible on the bases of expecting a descriptive history of the origins of the earth or of man. But then, I wouldn’t read a science journal on the questions of morality, I would read the likes of Kant and Aristotle or Jesus. I think Robert Winston summons this up perfectly in his “five minute interview” here (It's about 2:30 minutes in)

2.By definition, God does not need a creator (hence a necessary being) if you replace the term “God” with “A being that has no creator” then you see the argument doesn’t really make sense. Basically you say “If a being who has no creator exists then what created that being” and you argue in a circle. I don’t think the analogy of comparing God to man really works because no one claims that man is a necessary being as we are all too aware that humans have a beginning and an end.

3.You’re right, it is a hard question to answer, but mainly because of the length it would take to summon up what I have thought, contemplated and read over the past 23 years. So to spare you that horror I will try and summarise.

Some of my beliefs are based on experience, I can’t say I have had the honour of seeing a miracle healing (and if I did I would probably be just as sceptical about it as the next person) but I have witnessed the positive effect of people who claim to have found God. I have witnessed the testimonies of people who have completely transformed their lives (for the better) based on their faith. Obviously this is in no way proof, as I’m sure you could just say that it was a case of mind over matter or a psychological delusion that happens to bring about a positive effect.

However, I would couple this with my love of philosophical study with arguments that point out that massive the contradiction which materialism must declare (on its own terms) that objective reason and logic can not be possible (which, if you think about it is a nonsensical statement) and therefore, something must come from outside the purely physical. (If you want to read about this argument there is an online summary here) This is coupled with other philosophical principles I beleive to be true such as objective morality ect.

I will discuss your arguments a bit later, but unfortunately I have to go to work, but I thought I would at least address the questions you put forward to me.

In my mind IF you believe in a Christian based God THEN you have accepted the teachings and story of the Bible and have therefore ignored the principle of logic and reasoning... By definition your beliefs cannot change without moving away from believing in a Christian God and accepting more logical, reasonable beliefs.

To be completely honest, I'm really not sure I'm following you on this one. Are you suggesting that logic and reason can not be applied to the groundwork of faith? In my mind, the existence of a God would enforce my belief in logical thought and reason (something that's harder to do if you believe in absolute materialism, see link above) and therefore you can use reason to examine ideas found within the Bible. Is that what you meant or have I missed something?

[Al_Fel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9AGk2gk9M&feature=related

Just thought I'd try out the new "media" tags and hopefully amuse some people with this little clip of Ben Rowlands.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

Are you suggesting that logic and reason can not be applied to the groundwork of faith?

No, I'm saying that logic and reason cannot easily be applied to the stories in the Bible, beyond reasoning that the whole thing is a series of stories not meant to be taken literally leading to the question 'if the stories are not literaly true, why would you believe in the existence of God or an afterlife?'.

A logical, reasonable person would look at the facts and evidence and come to the conclusion that it's a very nice story but completely unbelievable. Removing that you're only left with faith which ignores logic and reason leaving only, well, faith itself.

Don't know if that makes any more sense than my last post but there you go .

[ManxTrialSpaz]

2.By definition, God does not need a creator (hence a necessary being) if you replace the term “God” with “A being that has no creator” then you see the argument doesn’t really make sense. Basically you say “If a being who has no creator exists then what created that being” and you argue in a circle. I don’t think the analogy of comparing God to man really works because no one claims that man is a necessary being as we are all too aware that humans have a beginning and an end.

I see you've preemptively blocked the "Why does man have to have a creator" argument by bringing in "necessary beings". Sorry but no. In what is essentially a scientific process vs religion debate, you cannot argue by using something that only appears in religion*.

So without referring to philosophical ideas why must man (or life as a broader spectrum) need a creator?

* Given this, I suppose you could argue the reverse and claim it unfair for the atheists to defend their views with rational thinking and actual proofs (giggle)

Edited February 8, 2010 by ManxTrialSpaz

[beigemaster]

I see you've preemptively blocked the "Why does man have to have a creator" argument by bringing in "necessary beings". Sorry but no. In what is essentially a scientific process vs religion debate, you cannot argue by using something that only appears in religion*.

So without referring to philosophical ideas why must man (or life as a broader spectrum) need a creator?

* Given this, I suppose you could argue the reverse and claim it unfair for the atheists to defend their views with rational thinking and actual proofs (giggle)

OK I'm slightly confused now. What question am I trying to answer and what methods am I not allowed to use? Am I right that you want me to answer the question "Why does man need a creator" without using any form of philosophical ideas? I don't see how this is possible as the question "why does man have to have a creator" is a normative question, outside the realm of description and therefore outside the line of scientific understanding.

If you could just clarify for me that would be helpful.

No, I'm saying that logic and reason cannot easily be applied to the stories in the Bible, beyond reasoning that the whole thing is a series of stories not meant to be taken literally leading to the question 'if the stories are not literally true, why would you believe in the existence of God or an afterlife?'.

Ok I think I see what you're saying, But isn't the choice of the bible being all literally true or all completely made up a false disjunction? Isn't there the case of a middle ground that some parts will have be true, some historically altered/inaccurate, some analogy ect. Reason should be the tool used when analysing the bible and it's different themes on an individual basis rather than just assuming the whole thing is false (unless you have read the entire bible and the entire collective of academic debate of the past 100 years on its historical validity)

[ManxTrialSpaz]

OK I'm slightly confused now. What question am I trying to answer and what methods am I not allowed to use? Am I right that you want me to answer the question "Why does man need a creator" without using any form of philosophical ideas? I don't see how this is possible as the question "why does man have to have a creator" is a normative question, outside the realm of description and therefore outside the line of scientific understanding.

If you could just clarify for me that would be helpful.

It was a bit of a confused and convoluted reply but in short, why does there need to be a creator of life? Why can it just not have happened? And I was basically just asking for your reply not to refer to intelligent design.

[monkeyseemonkeydo]

But isn't the choice of the bible being all literally true or all completely made up a false disjunction? Isn't there the case of a middle ground that some parts will have be true, some historically altered/inaccurate, some analogy etc.

I don't think so. 'Historically altered/inaccurate' doesn't quite cover it for me when you're considering things like the creation of the Universe, man, the burning bush, resurrection, parting of seas, floods and arks, water to wine, feeding 5000 people on a stick of chewing gum etc. As said before there may have been a guy called Bejus who stood up against the powers that be back in the day but everything else, I would guess, is most likely entirely made up. We're back to the 99% fiction and if that's all fiction why would Bejus being the 'son of God (kinda)' not be just another of those fictional factors made up to turn a normal dude, lets call him Brian (or Bejus), into a false idol. Once again, if you use logic and reasoning you'd come to the conclusion that the whole thing is pretty laughable. But then if you've got faith then it's ok because you can just ignore logic and reasoning can't you...