The Theism/Atheism Discussion

[Emperor Devon]

To say that would be naive. A country is its military and political prowess. To say it simpler, a country is its image. And America projects the image of unity, freedom, strength, but most importantly: power.

 

It scares me whenever countries adopt the idea that they infallible, all-powerful bastions of freedom and might. It's attitudes like that which led to the WWs and Iraq.

 

It was a different time back then. Monstrous now, normal then.

 

Erm, why is it you've been advocating how important it is for people to follow the word of a book you've labeled as "monstrous"?

 

I'd just like to point out that a lot of the Bible quotes ED quoted have, as far as I understand it, been superceded by New Testement, Jesus dying for our sins, ect.

 

Might I ask why God never stated the Old Testament is now non-canon?

 

No problem, I've got some New Testament quotes to provide as well.

 

'Whoever divorces someone...'

 

'...and marries another...'

 

'...commits adultery.' (Punishable by death, I might add)

 

'Whoever marries a divorced woman...'

 

'...commits adultery.'

 

'You have heard how it was said "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth."'

 

But I say to you: offer no resistance to the evildoer.'

 

'If someone strikes you on the right cheek...'

 

'...offer him the other as well.'

 

'Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth.'

 

'I have not come to bring peace but a sword.'

 

'I have come to bring fire to the earth.'

 

'And how I wish it were blazing already!'

 

'You have heard that it was said, "Do not commit adultery."'

 

'I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully...'

 

'...has already committed adultery with her in his heart.'

[Nancy Allen``]

I think it's less a case of the Old Testement being non canon and more a case of it explaining how things were. Like a history book, saying this was crime and punishment in those times.

 

Christians are not evil people. If you can believe that, then it's a start.

[GarfieldJL]

I think it's less a case of the Old Testement being non canon and more a case of it explaining how things were. Like a history book, saying this was crime and punishment in those times.

 

Christians are not evil people. If you can believe that, then it's a start.

 

 

I can say that the old testiment has some groundings in how we live our lives though. The Ten Commandments was a cornerstone in early law.

 

 

Getting back to topic, I'm going to say you need to have just as much faith to believe no god exists as someone that believes in god.

 

 

Also Devon you need to study your history.

 

World War I was started due to a guy being assassinated and his country demanded retribution and went to invade another country. This caused countries allied to both countries to get involved starting the first world war.

 

World War II was started by Japanese expansion in the Pacific in conjunction with Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union expanding their empires. Though Germany later backstabbed the Soviet Union. The Japanese then turned around and made a grievous error in judgement when they attacked Pearl Harbor which dragged the US into the war officially.

 

1st Persian Gulf War was to liberate Kuwait from Iraq which had invaded.

 

2nd Gulf War was partially due to bad intelligence combined with (not sure if US intelligence learned of this before we invaded) the fact that France was taking bribes from Saddam to vote against any resolution that would authorize force to ensure Saddam wasn't making WMDs. Further one could argue that Saddam smuggled a bunch of stuff to Syria while we were trying to get the UN on board.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Gulf War was partially due to bad intelligence [...]

Nonsense. It was started with lies and deliberate misleading. I think the Downing Street Memos and the other debates over at the Senate, in particular elaborate posts such as this one more than prove as much.

 

Further one could argue that Saddam smuggled a bunch of stuff to Syria while we were trying to get the UN on board.

Yup. One could also argue that the government of Iceland is secretly building a Borg Cube underneath its capital of Reykjavik. Without evidence, though, the statement is worthless diplomatically and politically.

 

Getting back to topic, I'm going to say you need to have just as much faith to believe no god exists as someone that believes in god.

Seeing that science is covering more and more of the roles of religion, I'm inclined to disagree.

[mur'phon]

And America projects the image of unity, freedom, strength, but most importantly: power.

 

I don't know about the rest of the world, but where I live the image is more like: power, greed and arogance.

 

We are the Empire, just a more forgiving Empire.

 

Yes, because the U.S have "never" staged coups in countries that it didn't like...............

 

People are scared of us

 

And this makes the U.S great?

 

we intimidate other countries.

 

Some countries, others like Iran, don't apear to care much

 

We have been truly attacked twice on our soil in the past 100 years or so

 

If terrorist attacks counts as attacks, the U.S is far from the country who have suffered most attacks

 

Anyway, this is geting off topic, If you want you can make another thread.

[Ray Jones]

Countries are afraid to attack us.

Hey, or maybe they just don't want to attack other countries? I mean, why don't you go over to you neighbour and beat the crap out of him and take over his house with pool? Because you're scared or because you don't feel like doing so?

[Darth InSidious]

No, it's just impractical. JK707's attitude is one reason a lot of people quite like the idea

[GarfieldJL]

Nonsense. It was started with lies and deliberate misleading. I think the Downing Street Memos and the other debates over at the Senate, in particular elaborate posts such as this one more than prove as much.

 

Not likely, seriously if Bush deliberately did something like that he would have been impeached by now.

 

Yup. One could also argue that the government of Iceland is secretly building a Borg Cube underneath its capital of Reykjavik. Without evidence, though, the statement is worthless diplomatically and politically.

 

There is a significant difference because we know that Saddam had WMDs, what's bothering me is where did several tons of Chemical Weapons, anthrax, and other biological agents went. If you don't believe he ever had any WMDs ask the Kurds.

 

Seeing that science is covering more and more of the roles of religion, I'm inclined to disagree.

 

Many scientists are actually just out to try to prove god doesn't exist. There is a bunch of things that could be used to prove the existance of god as well.

[ET Warrior]

Many scientists are actually just out to try to prove god doesn't exist. There is a bunch of things that could be used to prove the existance of god as well.

I'm going to go ahead and guess that you don't actually know many scientists, because any scientist who is out to "prove god doesn't exist" isn't a very good scientist.

 

I say this for several reasons, the main one being that is 100% impossible to do so, and anyone with a solid background in the sciences will know this. They'll also be aware that it's impossible to prove that god does exist.

 

By very definition any god exists completely outside the realm of science, there exists no test that can prove or disprove anything related to the supernatural.

 

What scientists are trying to do is learn new things about how the universe works by developing new hypothesis and tests that can provide useful information and allow them to make sound predictions.

[Emperor Devon]

I think it's less a case of the Old Testement being non canon and more a case of it explaining how things were.

 

Would it not be prudent to include, "hey Bible-readers, just so you know, the first half of this book is to explain what things were like back then"? With how the Bible is, as it and many other people claim, the literal word of God, it ought to be extremely clear on what parts of it should taken seriously. It's been nothing but the contrary.

 

That's one of the problems with holy texts. Since they're holy and unquestionable, you'll have people who still follow laws meant for civilizations that existed thousands of years ago while there's now way to rewrite them like with today's laws.

 

Like a history book, saying this was crime and punishment in those times.

 

Which a fair number of people today are still saying is the unquestionable word of God. If it was a history book someone in the Bible should've said so, rather than declaring anyone who did not follow it a godless heretic who'd burn in hell.

 

Christians are not evil people. If you can believe that, then it's a start.

 

I do not believe them to be inherently immoral people. I do, however, believe that your capacity to be a moral person is less inhibited if you do not follow any religions.

 

Also Devon you need to study your history.

 

World War I was started due to a guy being assassinated and his country demanded retribution and went to invade another country. This caused countries allied to both countries to get involved starting the first world war.

 

I would say the same to you. Franz Ferdinand's assassination just an excuse for an extremely nationalist group of nations to fight a war they'd been eager to have for years with each other, thanks in part to the attitude I criticized Jedi_Knight_707 for (belief in being the best country on earth, being strong and powerful, the sole voice of reason in the world, etc). That one heir to one country being shot is too minor a thing to spark a continent-wide war over, there had to have been and there were background reasons.

 

World War II was started by Japanese expansion in the Pacific in conjunction with Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union expanding their empires.

 

You should look in to the reason why they were expanding their empires. A great deal of that was due to, again, the arrogant attitude I described above.

 

Not likely, seriously if Bush deliberately did something like that he would have been impeached by now.

 

Would it? The decision to invade Iraq was a profitable one for the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. With how much influence the people connected to those unfortunately possess in our government and how closely tied the Bush family is to those people, good luck the impeachment.

 

The invasion stank worse than sauerkraut soaked in oil on a hot day. A group closely tied to his family and his father in particular (the CIA) approaches Bush, saying that there are WMDs in the very country his father coincidentally invaded a presidency earlier but never finished the job with. Never mind the complete lack of any evidence there were WMDs or how the CIA was basing their position on assumptions rather than proof, or that the invasion would be beneficial to the industries that had gotten the Bush family to where it was... (Though this is getting very off-topic, perhaps it would be better in another thread)

[Darth InSidious]

I say this for several reasons, the main one being that is 100% impossible to do so

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ET

 

Would it not be prudent to include, "hey Bible-readers, just so you know, the first half of this book is to explain what things were like back then"? With how the Bible is, as it and many other people claim, the literal word of God, it ought to be extremely clear on what parts of it should taken seriously. It's been nothing but the contrary.

Re-read the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me that it's fairly clear. If that doesn't help, IIRC, 'Acts' contains some stuff on the Council of Jerusalem, which is explicit on what of the OT applies post-NT. If not, I'm sure Paul will have something to say on the subject. He usually does.

 

I think one of the mistakes being made here is treating the Bible as a single, cohesive work. Plainly it isn't. It was written over millennia, and rather than being a single work, or picture or pattern, I would say that certainly the Old Testament is rather a written account of the ongoing divine revelation to our antecedants.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ET

It is actually 100% impossible to prove a negative. In other words, no one can prove for sure that a given thing doesn't exist.

 

Not likely, seriously if Bush deliberately did something like that he would have been impeached by now.

That's like looking at a rapist who went free and going 'nah, if he was really guilty, he'd have been in jail by now'.

 

There is a significant difference because we know that Saddam had WMDs, what's bothering me is where did several tons of Chemical Weapons, anthrax, and other biological agents went.

And if you had bothered to read the post I linked to, it'd have answered your question.

[GarfieldJL]

So you mean to tell me it never existed, don't give me that garbage because he used chemical weapons against the Kurds, it was one of the charges brought against Saddam in his trial.

 

You can't tell me he disposed of everything because he kept moving things around on the UN weapon inspectors, if he did destroy the stuff he wouldn't have anything to hide.

 

 

Back to original topic, there are several things that seem to indicate that there was divine intervention. The very fact life exists, because it is extremely difficult for amino acids to form because there are a lot of chemicals that more readily react to the components of amino acids than the building blocks react with each other.

[Nancy Allen``]

I do not believe them to be inherently immoral people. I do, however, believe that your capacity to be a moral person is less inhibited if you do not follow any religions.

 

You're forgetting one very important facet here. There's a general rule that if one's religion interfere's with their humanity, then there's something wrong with their religion. Example? Condemning homosexuals. Not quite, it's the condemnation of homosexual activity. Witches, not just condemning Harry Potter but wanting to burn those who declare themselves witches at the stake. It says that we are meant to follow the law, and murdering someone who is supposed to be a witch is against the law. This is the stumbling block abortion clinic bombers, plane hijackers, ect, stumble over.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Garfield, instead of putting words in my mouth, I suggest you actually read the post I linked to. And the Downing Street Memos.

 

Re-read the Sermon on the Mount. It seems to me that it's fairly clear.

Not to me. And after half an encyclopedia article later, it's even less so.

[ET Warrior]

The very fact life exists, because it is extremely difficult for amino acids to form because there are a lot of chemicals that more readily react to the components of amino acids than the building blocks react with each other.

Just because it was extremely unlikely does not prove anything one way or the other. That is the point. A god or gods are just impossible to prove or disprove, no matter what methodology you take.

[Nancy Allen``]

So why do people try and disprove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is no God?

[tk102]

It is actually 100% impossible to prove a negative. In other words, no one can prove for sure that a given thing doesn't exist.

Can you quote the portion in that link that supports that claim, DE? I'm not finding it.

[True_Avery]

So why do people try and disprove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is no God?

That is a valid point I think. If there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of something, then why bother being on either side of the spectrum?

 

I'll ask you a similar question:

 

Why do people try and prove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is a God?

 

I think you would be amazed at how much hounding there is of the religious and the non-religious by other religious people who believe themselves to be infallible. Atheists and the religious have a lot in common, particularly the fact both like to state that their belief system is right and yours is wrong by trying to show evidence to their opinion. Another reason why I personally believe right and wrong to be a relative point of view.

 

Only a Sith deals in absolutes, ET.

I guess that makes the majority of humanity a Sith in my opinion. Lovely Star Wars quote, but it comes off as really silly when used in a real debate

 

Just because it was extremely unlikely does not prove anything one way or the other. That is the point. A god or gods are just impossible to prove or disprove, no matter what methodology you take.

Impossible to prove, most likely. Even if we somehow proved existence of a God or the proof that a God does not exist, I doubt the world would change all too much. People would accept it and deny it, which, to be quite honest, is exactly what we do to this day.

 

I think it is a silly debate personally because I both believe and do not believe. You cannot prove to me a God exists, but you also cannot prove to me a God does not exist. I will not state my view as fact, but as opinion and viewpoint.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Can you quote the portion in that link that supports that claim, DE? I'm not finding it.

I'm sorry, wrong article. Here you go. Although it should be mentioned that the appropriate section (Theism) lacks citations:(.

[Nancy Allen``]

That is a valid point I think. If there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of something, then why bother being on either side of the spectrum?

 

I'll ask you a similar question:

 

Why do people try and prove the existence of God, or perhaps more accurately they hound people about why there is a God?

 

I think you would be amazed at how much hounding there is of the religious and the non-religious by other religious people who believe themselves to be infallible. Atheists and the religious have a lot in common, particularly the fact both like to state that their belief system is right and yours is wrong by trying to show evidence to their opinion. Another reason why I personally believe right and wrong to be a relative point of view.

 

Oh I don't think I would be amazed, they go about it quite a bit. To answer your question though I think it comes down to beliefs, whatever they may be. I'm sure there would be war between Atheists who believe in science and Atheists who don't, Atheists who comdemn religion and those who don't, the same as there is with Prodestent, Roman Catholic, Jewish, Islam, ect. Perhaps a better question would be why do people want to go beyond the acceptance of their beliefs and go into trying to make others have the same beliefs?

[Ray Jones]

That is a valid point I think. If there is no way to prove or disprove the existence of something, then why bother being on either side of the spectrum?

That leads to the question of why bother with the possible existence of god for the whole life then? Why wars about gods? Hm.

 

 

Another reason why I personally believe right and wrong to be a relative point of view.

the right and wrong of a statement, idea, conclusion, whatever is not relative. The belief if something is right or wrong is. One can believe it is right there is one god who fiddled together this universe. One can believe it is right there is no god around and the universe popped out of nowhere just to exist. Both maybe wrong because in fact papa-god and mama-god were very in love with each other, so they went to their favourite Asian restaurant to eat spaghetti and meatballs. And after that they made god-love. They made god-love to hot and demanding that the rubber they used broke. But nothing happened so the got themselves a god-dog. And that god-dog makes god-dog-poo. And every time he makes a pile of god-dog-poo, a new universe is created.

 

 

Impossible to prove, most likely. Even if we somehow proved existence of a God or the proof that a God does not exist, I doubt the world would change all too much. People would accept it and deny it, which, to be quite honest, is exactly what we do to this day.

I think scientists would try to catch an exemplar of god for studying purposes like if it can differ between colours, perform simple tasks or if it has some kind of social behaviour (which I doubt in case of a single deity). I think in case we find proof for god to exist the most thrilling question would be: which RELIGION does she follow?

 

 

I think it is a silly debate personally because I both believe and do not believe. You cannot prove to me a God exists, but you also cannot prove to me a God does not exist.

That is funny because most people just "believe" in what they can examine through their physical senses, except for that one thing. Also, that is one useless statement to make. You either do believe in god, or do not. Your statement, opinion, view, or whatever you call it is merely a way to coward yourself out of trouble to explain why you believe or not, because grandma would be shocked and your friend would laugh, or the other way around. In the end your statement indicates that you don't believe else you would say so.

 

Calling someone a coward, or making that inference, is flaming here. Don't flame. --Jae

[Corinthian]

The whole point of Faith is that it cannot be proved, or it isn't Faith. God's existence can not be proven or disproven, you either believe or you don't.

[True_Avery]

the right and wrong of a statement, idea, conclusion, whatever is not relative. The belief if something is right or wrong is. One can believe it is right there is one god who fiddled together this universe. One can believe it is right there is no god around and the universe popped out of nowhere just to exist. Both maybe wrong because in fact papa-god and mama-god were very in love with each other, so they went to their favourite Asian restaurant to eat spaghetti and meatballs. And after that they made god-love. They made god-love to hot and demanding that the rubber they used broke. But nothing happened so the got themselves a god-dog. And that god-dog makes god-dog-poo. And every time he makes a pile of god-dog-poo, a new universe is created.

The idea of right and wrong is belief and opinion created by the viewpoint of someone based on the society they live in and the upbringing they received, whether it be by themselves or from their parents. One person can say God does not exist, another can say God does exist. Both believe they are right and the other is wrong. Thus, the idea (or at least the belief) of right and wrong is relative to me because I believe that every action, every opinion and veiwpoint taken has an equally "good" and "bad" repercussion and that no opinion is right or wrong and that applies to my opinion as well. Although I contradict myself in having an opinion of my own. I'm not exactly sure if you are mocking me, disagreeing with me, or agreeing with me to be honest.

 

Although science does have some ideas that can be stated to be right and wrong. If one person says "You are breathing!" and the other person says "No, I am not." then the other would be wrong in this day and age. But, if the other person states that they are merely absorbing the life given to them by god everytime they draw breath and that it is not the air that keeps them alive, but god, how do you prove him wrong? Sure, science states that when you breath the oxygen is used to power your muscles and brain and it has been concluded as such, but we make scientific discoveries all the time that disprove theories and conclusions before us. Maybe in a thousand years we can be proven wrong on that like so many other things. Maybe reality itself can be proven wrong somehow. Science and Religion are simply ideas being applied to what we have and a conclusion being created from that information. At the core, they are almost the same to me and the constant bickering does not help either side.

 

 

I think scientists would try to catch an exemplar of god for studying purposes like if it can differ between colours, perform simple tasks or if it has some kind of social behaviour (which I doubt in case of a single deity). I think in case we find proof for god to exist the most thrilling question would be: which RELIGION does she follow?

Indeed, and if we could not get an answer I suspect people would probably fight over the right to call god theirs.

 

 

That is funny because most people just "believe" in what they can examine through their physical senses, except for that one thing. Also, that is one useless statement to make. You either do believe in god, or do not. Your statement, opinion, view, or whatever you call it is merely a way to coward yourself out of trouble to explain why you believe or not, because grandma would be shocked and your friend would laugh, or the other way around. In the end your statement indicates that you don't believe else you would say so.

That is a pretty black and white way to look at the world. The truth is I do not care. I neither believe a god exists, or a god does not exist because there is no evidence to my eyes that either one is fact. I have yet to see someone give me infallible proof that a god exists or does not exist. So, I sit in the middle between the two and watch them yell at eachother as I simply live my life in the gray. Some of us find the gray or the illusion of the gray quite a comfortable place to live.

 

And so that makes me a coward? I have taken the trouble to explain my viewpoint in as few words possible. I am far more afraid of what people might think of other aspects of who I am then what religion I am a follower to. I could care less what my family thinks of my veiws because they do not have control over who I am, and my friends do not care or they would not be my friends.

 

I do not really mind if you hate me or like me for my opinion because if I really cared I would not dare post, but please do not disrespect me by calling me a coward and labeling me to a side because I will not pick a side in this timeless debate.

[Darth InSidious]

Garcon? Sense of humour for the whole table.

 

Not to me. And after half an encyclopedia article later, it's even less so.

 

Fair enough. For this discussion, I'll be using BibleGateway.com's NIV translation, just so you know. If you really want, we can go back to the koine, but I'll have to brush up beforehand. Might be able to manage the Vulgate. I suppose what I was getting at as the key phrase in particular was:

 

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

(Embolding added by me)

 

Furthermore, the Six Antitheses (the six sets of paragraphs beginning 'You have heard how it was said', and 'but I say to you' set a standard higher than the old standard of 'do unto others'.

Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

^Also translated in the Jerusalem Bible as "you must be perfect" - probably an imperative of some sort, but I'm not sure. So I don't know about you, but to me it seems quite clear that where in the Jewish law there had been specific precepts, Jesus has radicalised them to being broad principles of behaviour. And if we are to 'be perfect', then laws on rape etc clearly no longer apply - such things are no longer applicable since they are clearly unacceptable to Jesus, and so, presumably are part of the 'wide path'.

 

That's the way it seems to me, anyway