If you posted this five pages back, I would agree. The past few days, however, have revitalized this thread. We have finally started to break down some walls between the two groups. While I won't say that sides are going to be switched anytime soon, the sense of hostility has gone away and more intellectual discussion seems to present than ever before.
I wouldn't lock it. This thread is practically the all encompassing religion/deity thread. I'd almost go to the extent that this thread practically is the debate forum, save for some other topics which spring up every now and then.
I'm glad you asked: I've been really ranting on, as some might see it, about God, without really being able to really speak about him. God wants to give you proof that he exists, but if he just hands it to you, then you won't be able to know what it truly means. You have to be shown. Did you know that a shepherd will literally break a sheep's leg if it doesn't obey? That's sort of what God does. He created lightning. You know the term lightning never hits the same spot twice, right? Well, I think that's because that spot has already learned what it means to experience pain. God shows pain, God shows forgiveness, and God also shows love. ...But you say you need proof, still??? I can only hand you my experience, or proof. I can't show you. So here's a go at it: If you remember, just last week I said the only proof of God is through your own experiences and I gave you my experience with my grandma. Just this Sunday, I went to church with my family, and guess what I saw on the front cover of the bulletin... These words: Jesus comes to us as One unknown, without a name as of old, by the lakeside, he came to those who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: "Follow me!" and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfill for our time. He commands. And those who obey Him, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they will pass through in His fellowship, and as ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who he is. -Albert Schwetzer- You might call it coincidence; I'll call it something else... But you may not see it like me until you witness it for yourself. Now I believe this topic's original intentions have been answered. You have my permission to lock.
Eric0, your actions here have brought me into the debate forum, something I thought would never happen again after doing so well for the better part of a year. Why? To tell you to stop being a pretentious twat. You've sullied the ****ing word "Christian" and reside on the extreme end of the religion that makes me ashamed to dare say I belong to the same faith. Time and again you've degraded us by blaspheming and running your ****ing mouth off about things you CLEARLY don't fully comprehend. If you're going to follow the religion be a free thinker, that is what our faith encourages in the first place, to find your own path, READ the bible on your own rather than rely on what your parents or your pastor say. If you had, half the **** you've been spewing out of your ass of a mouth would not have shown up. I bet you wholeheartedly believe that the devil is the snake from Genesis. Reason I'm ranting is this: better yourself. Your statements here have single-handedly brought down a great debate, not because any of them were sound, but that you've reinforced the idea that the sides are too finely drawn, that nobody will yield a single point to another, no matter how logical it may be. You shoot down every ill-comment towards your defense as "opinion" when frankly your (or shall I say your leader's) interpretation of the bible is in of itself an opinion and as such invalidates itself if you really want to go on using that rhetoric. In closing, this thread is not getting closed because of you Eric0, but it got ****ing close. The rest of you, anything off-topic will get infracted and in the end, if I don't feel like dealing with it anymore, it'll get locked as Chrst resolved. If you wish to comment on the matter, PM me, otherwise any such comment in here will get infracted, even if covered by on-topic stuff in the thread. That includes you Eric0. That is all.
The difference between being given proof, and being "shown", is what exactly? I bet that's just what chrstphrbrnnn was waiting for. Your "permission". The question "Is there a god" is as pertinent today as it was on the day of this thread's creation, and as pertinent as it will be tomorrow. Edit: I posted this beofre I saw your post SargeantSarcasm, if it's too off topic, tell me and it's gone.
Giving a dog a treat without them earning it. One vote can grow. How do you think Obama won the election? So I guess there's no point debating then, is there?
No you can lock it, this one seems to just be going in circles anyhow. @SargeantSarcasm Yeah I felt the same way a few pages back and made a similar post to yours just with less colorful words haha. We seem to be having a rough spot since we orriginaly got off topic,its hard getting back on topic. Ontopic response: I said this one or two times in the past in this thread but I'll give a shortened version of it. I see religion and "God" as a way of comforting people and to explain certain thing they couldn't ,like "way are we here". Then after believing in a religion they can claim the there are acts of god or the devil when ever something they can't answer happens. Religion is a pillow and a scape goat for many.
One of the most difficult parts of this debate is not that non-believers have such a tough fight inherent in the arguments we have to contend with, we literally have no idea what the arguments are going to be. There's no consensus between the world's christians as to to what the nature of god is, or the extent of his works. Some are old-testament, brutal god believers, some are new-age 'there must be a god out there somewhere, but I don't see it and don't think about it too much' kind of believers, and everything in between. If we could get a little consensus from the christian community, then we would argue, as it is, we're always swiping at a moving target. Which brings me to my next topic; the form of the actual debate that we're up against. I'm not a pro debater, but I do follow politics quite a bit, and have gotten to know that nuance, semantics, and minutiae are incredibly important to debate. Cool detachedness generally wins the day, and arguments have to be air-tight, or they will be ignored, or eviscerated. Scripture is NOT convincing argument. It literally means nothing to me, and will generally cause me to disregard the rest of the argument. It's like if I pasted a block of molecular biology diagrams, most people would just tune it out. We're curious people, we need substance! All that is in scripture and dogma is pure bias. If I present a chart with all the different fossils that we've found, and the clear speciation links between them, you have to understand that this isn't just scientific dogma. You can get out there and see these things for yourself. It's a little more complex, but incredibly rewarding. It's not an assault on your belief either, these are things that simply are. The sky is blue, evolution is overwhelmingly proven, photosynthesis capitalizes on quantum entanglement for maximum efficiency... and we don't see god anywhere. Where do you see him? Again, I'm mostly challenging the fundamentalists, but like I say, it's a moving target. Maybe the christians could talk amongst themselves and establish a united front, so we could have something solid to debate
Just throwing my voice in here but, don't lock the debate. If no one wants to debate it any longer, just let it die out, so that in a months time or so if someone wants to start again its there. There is no reason to lock it. It's not like this is damaging the site, and any spam can and should be reported and receive an infraction. However, of course the debate is going in circles, any debate does that. Debate's aren't supposed to end. I personally like to debate, and this is the most popular by far debate in the debate forum. No other debate's last more than a few pages, and ones that do eventually die out. If you don't want to debate, leave the thread, unsubscribe from it and don't look back. Let the people who still want to debate, debate, and mind your own business. There's no need to lock it, and just because some people don't like it doesn't mean everyone does. Again, if you don't like it, shut the **** up, and get out of here. __________________________________ Moving on, ER1C0, if an experiment shows that Substance A turns green under the right light, do you think it's a good idea to tell people it does, but say, "we can't show you this, because then you'd just believe us. Only people who truly can believe this without the need for proof are right, those who somehow don't believe us are fools" God should want everyone to get into Heaven right? I think he does, and everyone could if he just told people, "Heeeeeeyyy! Here I am!" Does there need to be true believers and hundreds of religions and non-believers and Heaven and Hell? Going on the idea he does in fact want everyone of his children to reach heaven, if we saw that he existed, he proved it to us with undeniable proof, then who cares if people are believing just because they got proof, and not believing despite a lack thereof? If murderers, rapists, and thieves can make it into heaven by just repenting, then anyone should be able to, no matter how hard they believe in him. Why should I even have the ability to question my father's existence? Does that strengthen our bond?
Why is it only non believers? There's a lot I find wrong here. Why can't I say the exact same thing for atheists? Also, since when are all Christians the instigators? I'll even answer for you. You can't and they're not. So? You debate their statements and their points, not the person or their beliefs.
Here's two quick interesting points relating to the topic: Note that these relate to ~4000 BCE The Epic of Gilgamesh, the literary source of the ancient Sumerian's religion, contained a tale of mass flooding of the whole Mesopotamian region. The Sumerians established the Hammurabi, a code of laws that lasted from 1700 BCE to 300 BCE. The law specifically enforces a word-by-word "eye for an eye" treatment. Note that Sumerian priests had more power than government officials at the time, obviously have a great influence on Sumerian government. Note that Sumerians prayed as a polytheistic religion base. These sound familiar?
You can all you like, but if you don't know what the scientific consensus on a given topic is, go read a book. I'm talking about how christians can't even decide what the nature of their god is, whereas we have absolutely no doubt in our worldviews, because there's only one reality. We may have different ideas about how the data is interpreted, but if we see the right answer, we assimilate it instantly into our worldview. This is the exact opposite of religious people, who revert back to faith mode no matter what evidence they see. They even attack the very concept of evidence, so disturbing is it to their worldview. Also, your insistence on arguing the semantics of the instigator/defender breakdown of debating was debunked ages ago, in that, the person who is positing that something exists, always has to provide the proof. To quote RabidZerg, who put it so well: "In every situation, it is the one attempting to prove a positive that must prove themselves. Regardless of how many people believe it, the person claiming that something does exist must always provide the evidence. It's impossible to prove a negative, because the person defending the positive can just keep making things up (think about the invisible pink unicorn.)" This is a truism of debate. To which you replied, that that is not the way you debate. However, if you do not follow the rules of debate, your entire argument will be suspect. Also, you don't need to answer for me. As for debating arguments and points, how about giving me something to debate instead of attacking my semantics? Nobody wants to trot out the old favourites like irreducible complexity, or the 747 in a junkyard?
Based off this paragraph alone I almost find it ironic that you proceed to state how Christians act regarding to their faith yet you say you don't know. So let me put it clearly. Atheists will accept reality, and new evidence. Christians will accept anything that concedes with their faith. So am I the only one that finds this funny? You say Christians are hard to argue with because of varying beliefs, but you even stated yourself that all we believe is what we already have. So once you know, there's not anything else about it to know. Then what? Christians should have a hard time arguing with Atheists, because the evidence always changes. There's plenty of evidence in this thread, specifically about how Christians can still use the "no transitional forms" argument even when it is outdated. Oh so debunked! I am surely defeated because you managed to nitpick his reply when ignoring how mine was the one to finish it. Aren't you severely biased for your own favor? As I stated earlier (I'd expect you to ignore this as well) that the positive is almost always the instigator. Person A claims that God exists: Person A is the instigator. You're inherently agreeing with me, so what's your problem? You just want to sound like you're on the right end of the twig. Wait so not following some debate rules makes my argument moot? That's new. Semantics?! Lord help me, its all but semantics. I hope semantics isn't your smart word placeholder for shallow argument.
Don't lock the thread. Ever. Eyeless Sid, people aren't really arguing about the point you made, so I'll bring it back up without your permission. Back in the 1200s, Catholic belief was greatly strengthened by the church of England. People were force to look at the church and accept the beliefs. Or die. Now the basic concept was you have to give the church money, because the bishops, Pope, etc. loved that stuff. They encrusted all of their Jewelry with the best gems, rubies, etc. NOW, the Black Plague comes from around the corner and starts to kill EVERYONE. 2/5 of Europe die, and during these frightful times, people began to believe more in identifying things as from the Devil or from god. This spreads the faith even more, making more people believe the same thing and forcing them to go to church, or die. Who is to say that these same fears have kept religion together for thousands of years. This constant fear that someone can get if they feel that one wrong act is going to send them straight to hell. Or the coincidence of the healings which occurred and became confirmation bias for all. ________________________________________________ "You've sullied the ****ing word "Christian" and reside on the extreme end of the religion that makes me ashamed to dare say I belong to the same faith. Time and again you've degraded us by blaspheming and running your ****ing mouth off about things you CLEARLY don't fully comprehend. If you're going to follow the religion be a free thinker, that is what our faith encourages in the first place, to find your own path, READ the bible on your own rather than rely on what your parents or your pastor say. If you had, half the **** you've been spewing out of your ass of a mouth would not have shown up. I bet you wholeheartedly believe that the devil is the snake from Genesis." Man do I love you. _________________________________ Actually, the church was truly weakened from the attacks that Boniface made at the government, which resulted in the popes loss of power, which resulted in the churches loss of power. But perhaps this perspective is a little more accurate on the overall cause. And in no way is this off topic, it has to do with the creation of religion and god. So please don't say we are testing the waters. They can stay down. Or whatever.
It's true, most religions include a deluge legend. Also, almost all religions include a version of the virgin birth. It's funny that many of these are from societies that don't exist in the young earth creationist's timeline, I guess the idea of being religious plagiarists was unappealing and needed to be edited out. Makes it hard to control the masses when you're ripping off the Egyptians and Sumerians, among others. It's also funny that the Romans were perfectly happy to accept the christian god, their religion was mutable, and the definition of CYA. The only reason they didn't like christians was because they demanded monotheism. Interesting stuff.
I just want to correct something here. The plague actually weakened the church because they promised that prayer and indulgences and faith would heal you if you got the plague, and people still died, including priests and monarchs and nobles alike, and when people saw that prayer didn't stop anything, they lost faith and this helped bring the church down from its huge amount of power.
Actually Hammurabi was a guy who wrote the law because he was the leader. It was a great step forward in government because it was the first(or close) written law. Yes hell is such a nice place to go. I'm glad there is that warm pillow to lay my head on at night. You must be referring to the consensus on Global warming, obviously. How about the one on dark matter? or how the universe began/will end? links?
This is a little off topic but i want to get back to page one, and not fighting on one of these side points that we always seem to get trapped up in. Q: Why do you (a christian) believe in god?
I'm atheist. But asking this question is irrelevant to the debate. This is like trying to ask a psychological question that has no definite answer. What we can be confident in is that religion comforts peoples way of thinking. Today, I watched a Film on European history and how the Catholics tried to save themselves from the black plague. One of the things they did was spread the bacteria even more when extremists went on journeys to "whip" the devil out of victims. This of course made the situation worse. Ironically, the Catholics never realized it, but when they locked up people in the city that had the plague and left them to die, this prevented the spread. This occurred several times in various cities, but of course "god" didn't spare them. What can we conclude? Either all Catholics, Christians, and other religions are delusional because their God didn't spare 25 MILLION people. Or they are wrong. No, there is no other answer, don't state "But god lets us make our own choices!" OR " But more people died in WW2 and god didn't stop that because he doesn't control humans!!!" Neither are correct. God doesn't exist and proclaiming that he punishes, ignores, or allows for free choice is... Delusional. Alright then, argument anyone?
Hence the name of the set of laws. IMO, the bible isn't completely original. If its not original, God hasn't existed forever. Think about it. The Epic of Gilgamesh contained a great flooding that the people of ancient Mesopotamia had to fight through. Noah's Ark anyone? Hammurabi's set of laws specifically stated an eye-for-an-eye punishment. That's in the Bible too. If the Bible was indeed written by people, you can't ignore the fact that they had knowledge of the Sumerian laws and religion. If they did indeed traverse the ideas from the pre-AD times to to the Bible, that means that the events explained in the Bible are not spontaneous and cannot conclude as real events. If the author of the Bible (if someone says its God... no.) used previous events to beef up the Bible, who says that he hasn't made things up too? I'm not aethiest and I'm not Christian. I don't know atm, still looking for the right and most logistic one that satisfies me. Also Noah's Ark, splitting the sea, and a burning bush are fictional. The authors of the Bible used them as moral stories, just like in modern books. Believing that they actually happened is beyond me...