|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 13, 2003 13:00:16 GMT -5
GOLDENSAN:
It is not stupid to begin a debate, IF you intend to to actually debate. This is NOT the forum for voicing your opinion without anything to back it up. Have you even bothered to read the description for this section of the forum?
"Forum for educated, in-depth debate on any serious topic. Keep it civil. Don't bother entering if your idea of a well structured argument is 'ROFL u suk'[/i]."
Again, you miss what I've been saying. Merely saying what you have is not offensive IF YOU CAN SUPPORT IT[/i].
Otherwise, do not begin a topic in the debates section. Especially if it's to "[let] out some messed up emotion". That's called spam.
Not really. I have most of Goldensan's post in quotes. Plus Goldensan's constant posts of not wanting to defend what he posts here supports that I've not simply made it up.
Freedom of speech has limits, for one. Secondly, on this board, freedom of speech is tempered by our rules. Too bad you haven't taken the time to read them.
Plus you've just contradicted your strong atheism claims.
Don't even try to use an appeal to pity for YOUR actions. It's not my fault you neither read the rules or the description for the debate section.
Yes, diversity is a wonderful thing when it's complemented by religious wars.
BACK TO THE ACTUAL DEBATE:
Typical appeal to ignorance fallacy. If we follow your reasoning out to its logical conclusion, then you must believe in every religion (thus giving rise to numerous contradictions in your belief), any claim upon hearing it.
For propositions we cannot prove with certainty, people use (or rather, are supposed to) reason and evidence to provide justification for belief. Otherwise, you're blindly believing in something, and it puts your belief in the category of "I believe in magic unicorns".
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 13, 2003 14:56:00 GMT -5
Point one: I'm not blind, neither stupid. Point two: You don't need to belive in any religion. Who said I belived in one?
Just for you to know, I think that is stupid from people to belive in a book. That makes me laugh. I have my own theory about God, wich is pretty simple: He does exist. Dunno how or what, or where... I just prefer to believe that He does exist rather than not.
Let's see if you have 50% to 50% choice to believe that he exists, what would you choose?
EDIT: Believing in God is not the same as having a religion.
|
|
|
Post by Forbidden on Jul 13, 2003 16:52:03 GMT -5
Wow, this is a very strange, nice forums. There are atheists in this forum, christans, jews, and maybe muslims and catholics? Wow, this is nice. I wouldn't be able to say much though, I don't know much about religion.
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 13, 2003 18:05:04 GMT -5
You don't need to be religious or whatever you call it to have your own oppinion. To be honest I just went to the church a couple of times and just to do company to my cousins, nothing else...
|
|
|
Post by Forbidden on Jul 13, 2003 19:48:59 GMT -5
I've also been to the Bet-Knesset a few times to company my cousins. Nothing else.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 13, 2003 23:08:16 GMT -5
Religion- "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."
Believing in a god is the central point of religion. While your position (which sounds like deism) may not involve religious traditions or practices, it still qualifies as a religious belief.
So you believe it stupid for a student to trust his school textbooks for providing accurate information on the subject learned?
Or am I to assume you *REALLY* mean you think it's foolish for one to hold faith in a book's claims that lack credible evidence to support the truth of said claims?
That's nice, but your belief is both A) one held by blind faith, and B) no different than the belief of those in a major organized religion.
Now, if you have some evidence or arguments for whatever God you're believing in, then perhaps you could claim a justified belief.
Once again, your belief is no different than another saying "I just prefer to believe magic unicorns exist".
Pascal's Wager resurfaces, and in a badly presented form!
First, Blaise Pascal in his Pensees argued that reason could not decide whether or not God existed, and so one has to choose whether to believe in God or not, and then lists the outcomes of the choice compared to God actually existing or not. Guess what, Pascal was talking about the CHRISTIAN GOD, not YOURS (assuming yours differs in any way). By using the same reasoning arguing for belief in a god, you've managed to expose the very flaw in Pascal's reasoning- there are many, many different types of deities, and so it's not simply a choice between a single god and non-belief! Suppose you continue your own form of theism, Nuno, only to find yourself in the Muslim hell after death! So to be fair, you have to factor in EVERY god into the wager, even ones yet to be created!
Plus, this leads to the Atheist's Wager. Suppose God exists, but has yet to reveal himself. However, everytime you pray to God, or hold a belief in God, you make him angrier (as he doesn't want people to believe prior to him revealing himself). In the end, this God punishes anyone who believes in a god with eternal d**nation, and rewards those without a belief in god with eternal bliss. By this reasoning, you should become an atheist.
Next, it is not a 50-50 chance of God existing. In order for anyone to seriously entertain the idea of a 50-50 chance, you'd have to provide evidence for God's existence. Otherwise, there is no reason to believe in a God, period (I can go into a lecture on epistemology if you want to dispute this). If one does hold a belief without evidence, it's a blind belief.
Lastly, forming an opinion one way or the other (should a 50-50 chance were to exist) would be meaningless unless there's a reason- that's why Pascal's Wager argues you should believe in God to escape Hell. Of course, if you're believing to escape a hell or hope for a heaven, then your belief is also one of self-interest.
Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 14, 2003 6:20:21 GMT -5
Ok, lets stop talking about theories and start talking about facts...
There once was a guy who had a son on coma. He had 3 days of life. So he prayed to God and "said" to him:
"If you save my son (wich was going to die second the medics) I will walk from France to Portugal (Fatima I think)."
And so it happened. The son went back to normal and the father did the walk.
Now, tell me. How could that be possible? Maybe some medics error no? I don't think so, because after that, the medics still had no explenation for that...
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 14, 2003 8:57:16 GMT -5
How do you explain all the people who pray to a god for someone to get better, and then that person dies?
There's a flaw in your reasoning- if those who are prayed for to get better and do are evidence of prayer working, then people who are prayed for to get better and don't (which far outnumber those who do) must be evidence against. Hence, you're bringing up a weak inductive argument which still gives you no justification. Perhaps you might read through some literature in medical journals over double-blind tests to see that most such experiments fail to provide any noticeable benefits.
Secondly, you AGAIN appeal to ignorance. You seem to have the false belief that doctors have a complete knowledge of medicine. They don't. That doctors cannot explain how a person got better does not mean that the father's prayer was answered. Illness was once thought of being demon possession. This was before scientists and doctors were able to examine the issue. In that context, you would have to believe the people who believed in demon possession to explain illness were right, which leads to problems.
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 14, 2003 9:01:14 GMT -5
Ok, I know that was a bad post... Give me some time... It's EASYER to prove that God doesn't exist rather than he does.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Jul 14, 2003 9:45:06 GMT -5
Not really. It's easier to show that there is no justification for believing in a god than it is to provide strong arguments that there is no god, period.
|
|
|
Post by Golden Logged Out on Jul 14, 2003 16:43:04 GMT -5
Ok...I'll start to be more civil about things right now, and from now on I'll try to back up my opinions, okay? Now can we just start over?
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 14, 2003 17:43:02 GMT -5
Sure, I need some backup now. ;D
|
|
|
Post by DrDuctTape on Jul 14, 2003 19:21:09 GMT -5
I stopped beliving in God and Satan and Heaven and Hell quite some time ago, shortly after my mom died. I think it sounds too great and perfect (Unlike everything else) to be true. Like he bible has all sorts or 'miracles' and stuff. Who writes this stuff beaus e they have a large imagination.
|
|
|
Post by Nuno on Jul 14, 2003 20:01:43 GMT -5
Isn't it better if you really believed that your mom is on Heaven and that when you die you will go next to her? This is the emotoinal side speaken. Mine at least. The logical one, no when you die your brain stops and you decompose...
I'm confused...
|
|
Zheil
RPG Townie
Posts: 920
|
Post by Zheil on Jul 16, 2003 18:10:46 GMT -5
The reason I don't believe that is...wait, that could happen, whether you believe in any religion or not. For some rare reason you could be buried next to her. Ok, That was kind of a stupid situation to explain. But I know one thing... ...don't go here: www.tubgirl.comMy brother had shown me this, I almost threw up.
|
|