|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 9, 2003 1:58:31 GMT -5
If I accepted Jesus' divinity, then by definition I'd be a Christian. So obviously no. ;D
Do I reject a historic Jesus? There's no credible extra-biblical evidence from contemporary historians that a Jesus existed, and what is mentiond of Jesus is from hearsay sources (including the Gospels). However, it is ultimately irrelevent whether or not a historic Jesus did exist, as even if he did that in no way entails divinity. And since I can't prove this kind of negative, I'll assume for sake of discussion that a Jesus existed, if you like.
You know, for someone intending to poke holes in my position you aren't doing so thus far. Am I to assume that you find nothing faulty in my reasoning (other than that I don't share your presuppositions)?
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 10, 2003 17:46:41 GMT -5
No, you are to answer my questions and wait until I begin debating your "belief." I am asking questions, to find out more of what you believe. You are the one that will be defending your belief and you've no charge as far as how this debate goes - so you will wait.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 10, 2003 21:05:01 GMT -5
If you aren't attacking to begin with, then I have nothing to defend.
As I know our answers to the questions you've asked differ, there's already enough raised to debate. If you intend to flit about topics, there's no point discussing. Pick something, either what's already brought up, or begin a new bit, and go with it.
And if you're that curious as to what I am, then I could simply tell you. I'm a naturalist, materialist, determinist, atheist, evidentialist, and empiricist.
|
|
|
Post by theblakeman on Feb 10, 2003 21:17:35 GMT -5
Blakeman, please do not post irrelevent material in the debates thread.
|
|
Matkau
RPG Townie
Got an opinion? Thats nice, tell someone who cares
Posts: 494
|
Post by Matkau on Feb 10, 2003 22:41:01 GMT -5
I'll just jump in, before this topic gets to large It's nearly impossible to say how any matter existed. It's rather absurd, from a logical standpoint, to blatantly state that a being of omnipotent power was responsible in the creation of the universe, Earth, and even life. Why, it is impossible to define our realm of existence in any way or form. Think of it this way, the universe is in a sphere. What's outside the sphere? Are there other spheres? How was the sphere created? Jesus Christ may well have been a real person. We have little evidence of Christ actually performing "miracles" except in scriptures written centuries beforehand. And how does one even know that these scriptures are indeed, factual? 10,000 years from now, archaeologists may come upon old Superman novels, and mistake this obvious fiction for scriptured events of actual miracles. Of course, this sounds ludicrous, but then again, you're saying Jesus was able to walk on water, heal the blind, turn water to wine, and even rise from the dead
edit: Sorry, I didn't mention I'm agnostic myself
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 10, 2003 23:01:48 GMT -5
Glad you could join us, Matkau, but I should point out some things. First, as Sim will undoubtedly say in his next post, the theme of this debate is not to analyze religion (namely, Christianity), but to instead analyze atheism (although I suppose it could extend to agnosticism too). Hence, so far Sim has only asked questions of the atheist/agnostic position (although he needs to hurry up and get to the meat of the matter ;D). If you intend to participate in this debate, please stick to the topic at hand.
That said, I agree that the question "why something rather than nothing?" is a meaningless one, due to the idea of causation. I detailed this in an earlier post.
The question of whether there is credible evidence for the gospels being credible documents or whether there exists historic corroboration for a historic Jesus is one quite debated. That the gospels are written long after the alleged events anonymously provides a good basis for placing them into the "myth" category.
In addition, the "miracles" of Jesus aren't anything new. In Buddhism, Buddha and the bodhisattva are also able to perform these miracles (and Buddhism is older than Christianity by centuries). The dying and rising gods are nothing new either. Attis, Krishna, Osiris are a few examples of dying and rising gods (Krishna, in the Bhagavad Gita, is also God-incarnate. The Bhagavad Gita, an epic poem of the Mahabhatra, predates Christianity also by centuries). And the idea of sacrifice is also played through Mithraism, where the god Mithra is often depicted as slaying a bull, which if memory serves, the blood is used to create the world.
Of course, that's off topic. But some interesting stuff nonetheless.
And by the by, what kind of agnostic are you?
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 13, 2003 18:33:39 GMT -5
I started thinking the other night.
I have a reply. It is not what ST wants to hear because I would be doing this in MY own fashion, and NOT his. If I decide I am to ask a few questions before-hand, I will do so.
But, I will not post that reply. I started thinking. I could sit here and argue with you until the rapture happens. I could bash your lack of foundation forever. And I could sit here and watch you try to reply. But that's not getting anywhere.
I imagine that you started reading this with your head buzzing with thoughts. Pondering what I would say and how you could counter it. Look at all the atheistic books you have. Consider all that you base your belief, or lack thereof on. Now think about several years from now. You may be dying of a sickness or just old age, and you lie on your death bed.
What does it all amount to?
The years you spent attempting to prove that God didn't exist.
The hours you spent searching through science and logic books attempting to find something to grasp on to.
I imagine that shortly before you die, you'll realize that it was all in vain. That you're lack of belief in God, didn't change the fact that He was real. That you're lack of belief in Hell, didn't make it any less hot.
I'm not quite sure what you think God did to you that you would deny Him. But right now, you're loaded down with so much "logic" and science and need for proof - that you don't understand what faith really is. You're so loaded down with a craving to disproove the Bible, that you don't understand what grace really is.
Satan himself has you convinced that he doesn't exist. He has you fooled and his every intention is to take you to Hell with him.
I don't know the answer to every question about the Bible, and I don't pretend to. But I do know this:
On September 26th, 1999 - I was convicted by the Holy Ghost of God, I made my way to the altar in church and asked Jesus to save me from the Hell I deserved. I didn't need anyone to tell me I was being convicted - and noone did. I just knew, that I didn't want to go to Hell.
On February 29th, 2000 - I was in a Wal-Mart parking lot waiting for my mom to get back from the store and the Holy Ghost dealt with my heart once again. God called me to preach that night. I didn't even know what being called to preach was. I didn't have anyone around to explain it to me, and I'm still not sure why God chose me..
I'm not sure what it would take for you to believe in God, I imagine some sort of scientific or logical proof.
But that's not what being saved is about. The Bible says that by grace, we're saved through faith.
I've done what I'm suppose to do. I don't have to try and prove that God is true. The Bible says that it's forever settled in Heaven.
It makes me sad to see people reject the love of God. He stands now and asks you to accept Him.
"To be almost persuaded is to be almost saved, to be almost saved is to be completely lost."
I can almost see God as he says "Come home, O child, come home."
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 14, 2003 1:39:53 GMT -5
Actually, I don't want to hear this because this isn't what your original post started with.
Originally, you wanted to *DEBATE* atheism. Debate involves a *RATIONAL* discussion involving *ARGUMENTS* for the position supported. Asking questions isn't a problem, but throughout the entire thread you presented not one difficulty for the atheist/agnostic. I even *TRIED* to get you to be on topic by asking questions, such as the reasoning that led to my conclusion on causality. Hence, if I am disappointed, it's due to yourself turning around and forgetting the original train of thought you had.
Actually, I have a strong foundation of epistemology, metaphysics, and axiology. It's you who has a flimsy one, based upon unwarranted presuppositions and faulty reasoning. The difference between ourselves in our assertions is that *I* can show this. You can't.
And funny. You never "bashed" me once. My conclusion is that you can't. Perhaps you realize that you have no arguments, or that you don't see where you can point out any errors in my reasoning, and thus need to use this standard theist cop-out to "save face".
Not at all. Whenever a new debate begins, I always give the theist the benefit of the doubt that they'll be able to rationally argue and perhaps even point out an error in my position. The fact is, you've yet to present any such errors.
Although I study world religions (not just yours), and have philosophy as my major (to which I am exposed to the majority of arguments on both sides of the debate) to where I do know most of the arguments on both sides as well as there relative strengths and weaknesses, there's a *LOT* on the matter I am *STILL* learning. Unlike yourself, I don't simply adhere dogmatically to a single belief. I investigate matters as much as possible, and check to see whether a position is supported.
To clarify one of your implicit ad hominems (that I blindly accept whatever relates to atheism, based on the "number of atheist books I own"), I have more BIBLES than books on atheism. This doesn't even *INCLUDE* the books on Christian apologetics I have and read to understand what arguments Christians use and whether they are sound.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 14, 2003 1:40:18 GMT -5
Is Pascal's Wager the best you can do? Appeal to the emotions is fallacious. It's no more valid than the Muslims who do the same scenario on non-Muslims.
I guess "the search for truth" doesn't work? As I said before, I don't dogmatically adhere to beliefs. I examine them to see whether they are true. Truth involves a correspondence with reality, and your beliefs lack such.
Strawman. Why would I need to disprove something that hasn't been proven in the first place? Secondly, the lack of belief in something does not necessarily imply with the belief in the non-existence of something.
Apparently the concept of an education is lost on you. I should also point out that the same logic I use, you do as well. The only difference is I know what it is, and use it a lot better than yourself (which is why you end up using numerous fallacies and I don't).
Secondly, I don't just "grasp" onto science. My responses here regarding the formation of the earth via hypotheses regarding the Solar Nebula should demonstrate that. That there is no definite process described and supported only has myself not hold a belief on the matter. Unless it is supported, I don't believe in it. With science, you can empirically test theories and laws, which each of them are falsifible.
Thirdly, you use the results of science more than you even realize. Your food is processed by methods to preserve it, antibiotics and medicines you use when sick are come from the study of bacteria and viruses, the very computer you use is based upon similar progress, and the list goes on and on. If you still honestly think that science is a crock, please unplug your computer, grow your own food, and leave this debate.
You never told me whether you believe eternal torture is a morally just action.
And this bit of reasoning that theists use never fails to amaze me, because if you turn it around, it only shows everything I've been saying:
That your belief in your god doesn't make him real.
Reality is not determined by what you believe, but by evidence. As you've YET to present evidence, or "poke holes in the armor of unbelief" as you originally claimed only supported that you lack credible evidence for your position. This lack of credible evidence is perhaps the greatest support to atheism.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 14, 2003 1:40:47 GMT -5
I'm not quite sure what you think Allah did to you that you would deny Him.
Notice how, once again, your own reasoning can be applied across the board to other religions? Presupposing the existence of your god is worthless; if you can do it, anyone can. If anyone can, then Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam, etc are also true religions.
Gee, you didn't even quote Hebrews 11:1.
I should point out that I know a good bit more about the relationship between reason and faith than you do. You're advocating (just like the Bible), BLIND faith, as opposed to REASONABLE faith. The latter ULTIMATELY depends on REASON. The former, which you advocate, is simply belief without any good reasons or any reasons at all. You simply believe. Am I supposed to be impressed by this? This is no different than what other theists do. Are THEY also right, having the EXACT basis as you? If no, then you undercut the very basis of your appeal to faith.
Once again, you ASSUME what you what to assume. If you don't think that all atheists are immoral people who deny your deity and are constantly looking for ways to disprove your religion and are giddy at the idea of proving you wrong then this messes with your worldview. Despite myself not acting in such a manner that you paint, you continue to present this strawman view of atheists. This like claiming only white rabbits exist when you're in a field of black rabbits.
Gullibility and mental conditioning has convinced you he does exist. So much for logical reasoning on your part. And you wonder why people make fun of idiots such as Chick. There's more of a world out there that what you know through Fundie-Vision.
Science encompasses the natural world. According to your religion, God is supernatural. This rules out science as direct proof of God. There's a way science *COULD* be used, but you wouldn't like it, and it wouldn't guarantee certainty.
Although the trait of supernatural also makes God epistemologically transcedent, to where strong agnosticism is justified, I'll assume for sake of argument that a proof of god can be constructed.
If you bothered to read your original post, that wasn't even the topic of this debate.
|
|
|
Post by SleepyTemplar on Feb 14, 2003 1:41:05 GMT -5
No you haven't. You haven't poked a single hole in any of my reasoning. As it stands, you actually AGREE with me that existence is eternal and doesn't require a cause due to your agreeing that being cannot come from non-being.
In my closing remarks, I would like to point out that once again, throughout the times I've chatted with you, that you are incapable of debate. You've gone completely off-topic. Were I a nice fellow I would just delete your post, or modify it saying you should stick to the topic. I will NOT do this because A) it will make you think you're a martyr ("Oh! The wicked atheist deleted my witnessing! Satan must be trying to hide the truth!"), B) your cop-out post shows exactly why you can't debate (Is this why you switched names in returning to the board? I did know who you were since your original post over the Chick parodies... only you could use that much rhetoric). As I'm not a nice fellow I'll let others see that you have no case against atheism.
Although this might leave you with the idea that I'm simply leaving that here to "inflate my ego". To prove you wrong yet again, I officially challenge you to post here with all the problems with atheism that you claimed to be aware of, as per your original topic of the debate. If I am right in my thinking (and I suspect I am), you'll either vanish, continue preaching, or present problems that aren't really problems. Here's your chance to show that I'm wrong!
|
|
Matkau
RPG Townie
Got an opinion? Thats nice, tell someone who cares
Posts: 494
|
Post by Matkau on Feb 14, 2003 17:16:02 GMT -5
Bravo. That's all i can say, and it's all that needs to be said
|
|
|
Post by Gimdin7 on Feb 14, 2003 20:47:21 GMT -5
Templar is my new Hero. I actually tried to debate with him a few weeks ago. I didn't do so bad, but he knew exactly what he was talking about. If anything, it was an enlightening experience for me.
|
|
|
Post by The Patryn on Feb 15, 2003 22:51:50 GMT -5
Yeah, he knows his stuff. I wouldn't even try to debate with him.
|
|
|
Post by The Jacket on Feb 16, 2003 16:33:49 GMT -5
Let me start out with an admission.
I should not have started an Atheistic thread. When I had my argument in my head, I intended for it to be against Atheists who were Evolutionists/ Believers in the Big Bang Theory. I simply do not know enough overall about atheism to "debate" the subject as of this time.
I can defend major parts of Christianity, and belief in God, and many points I have never seen before by simple common sense and scriptural references. But I am young, which brings me to my next point.
I wonder, is it some sort of ego inflation that a college student, majoring in philosophy, etc. can beat some young kids/teenagers in a debate? I do admit to creating the discussion, but what exactly are you doing here anyway? There are other places online where you can talk about/ debate atheism and theism. Yet you've chosen to debate with kids and teenagers. Is that what older atheists tell you to do? Look for those who are weaker and debate with them?
I used to think, "If he was to try and debate with someone like C.L. Roach or Maze Jackson or Ed Ballew, I wonder what would happen." But I know now what would happen - you would be slaughtered. I don't know 1/4 of 1/2 of what they know, and there are several out there, and online who know the Bible and the Lord like the men I mentioned do - but you have chosen to come and attack / debate with us.
Is what I said not true? Then tell me, why ARE you here instead of debating with people your age and older, and of your level of education.
I may NOT be able to debate, and if not then I will admit it. But I am only 16. I've still got alot to learn.
And even so, my command was not to debate: Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
|
|