Do you believe in God(s)?
- Queen of All Spiders
- Posts: 4263
- Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
- NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
- MBTI Type: ENFP
- Location: Quebec, Canada!
Wait, wait. The whole rock argument is a simplification of a larger idea that you people have ignored in lew of debate over the specific question. The idea is that if God's power is infinite, then it is -not- definied by any logic. Infinity is not a value as we know it. He can not create a rock that he could not lift because both graphs of strength and creatability never touch a specific value. They continue to mount to infinity, but they won't cross.
This is not a healthy area of debate, however. We, as non-Christians, certainly do not have any answer to the philosophical question posed here, and the main reason for that is that God is an impossibility. Christians, on the other hand, equally do not have an answer to this deeply philosophical question, and therefore will remain in awe of God.
This is not a healthy area of debate, however. We, as non-Christians, certainly do not have any answer to the philosophical question posed here, and the main reason for that is that God is an impossibility. Christians, on the other hand, equally do not have an answer to this deeply philosophical question, and therefore will remain in awe of God.
Loathes
- Remembering Hoxygen
- Posts: 969
- Joined: 2008.09.27 (21:40)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
- MBTI Type: INFP
- Location: SoCal
- Contact:
Free will is simply the choice of a human to act as he wants to, and God could still intervene for whatever reason. It doesn't strip Him of the power to do this.cheesemonger wrote:To me this is still ridiculous, as by giving us free will he ceases to be omnipotent, surely?

"How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot: Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resign'd" ~ Alexander Pope
"Boredom is not an appropriate response to exploding cars" ~ Hugh Laurie
-
- Boeing Boeing Bone!
- Posts: 769
- Joined: 2008.09.27 (05:31)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/yungerkid
- MBTI Type: INTJ
- Location: Seattle, Washington
- Contact:
and besides that, we don't even have free will in the first place.
slappymcgee, Christians (logical ones, at least) do not believe that God's power is infinite. i believe that God operates within logic, but that nothing else constrains Him.
slappymcgee, Christians (logical ones, at least) do not believe that God's power is infinite. i believe that God operates within logic, but that nothing else constrains Him.
- Remembering Hoxygen
- Posts: 969
- Joined: 2008.09.27 (21:40)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
- MBTI Type: INFP
- Location: SoCal
- Contact:
God can't really be God if he operates within logic, or else he cannot do anything more than a human.yungerkid wrote:slappymcgee, Christians (logical ones, at least) do not believe that God's power is infinite. i believe that God operates within logic, but that nothing else constrains Him.

"How happy is the blameless Vestal's lot! The world forgetting, by the world forgot: Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind! Each prayer accepted, and each wish resign'd" ~ Alexander Pope
"Boredom is not an appropriate response to exploding cars" ~ Hugh Laurie
-
- Boeing Boeing Bone!
- Posts: 769
- Joined: 2008.09.27 (05:31)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/yungerkid
- MBTI Type: INTJ
- Location: Seattle, Washington
- Contact:
wrong. humans do not have God's level of power. thing of logic as a ceiling for one's power. God is at the ceiling limit. we humans straggle below. it is my personal view, however, that humans could eventually become as powerful, mentally or physically, as God, if it weren't for the fact that we all die very shortly after being born.
- Queen of All Spiders
- Posts: 4263
- Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
- NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
- MBTI Type: ENFP
- Location: Quebec, Canada!
yungerkid wrote:wrong. humans do not have God's level of power. thing of logic as a ceiling for one's power. God is at the ceiling limit. we humans straggle below. it is my personal view, however, that humans could eventually become as powerful, mentally or physically, as God, if it weren't for the fact that we all die very shortly after being born.
But a God such as the one you describe, one that operates within logical realms, is little more than Darwinian. If your God is someone who has a complete mastery of the realm which he exists in logically, humans should, if our lifecycle goes on for millions and millions of years, eventually evolve into said state. It's God's trancendence of those logical barriers that make him a sole God.
But in any case, yungerkid, you aren't arguing a case for Christianity, here. Because the God you're describing is not the one in the Bible, but is instead something which I can get behind; an all powerful being that we have no evidence of. And we can only speculate at this point.
Loathes
- Retrofuturist
- Posts: 3131
- Joined: 2008.09.19 (06:55)
- MBTI Type: ENTP
- Location: California, USA
- Contact:
That appeals to you?SlappyMcGee wrote:But in any case, yungerkid, you aren't arguing a case for Christianity, here. Because the God you're describing is not the one in the Bible, but is instead something which I can get behind; an all powerful being that we have no evidence of. And we can only speculate at this point.
I take the Dawkins approach to any "god" that's contained entirely within the universe: it couldn't have come into existence as a complex thing, but had to have been formed over a long period of time from much more simple forms, just like us. This is misusing the label "god," which ought to be reserved for something that did not come about this way (which he and I believe to be impossible).
[spoiler="you know i always joked that it would be scary as hell to run into DMX in a dark ally, but secretly when i say 'DMX' i really mean 'Tsukatu'." -kai]"... and when i say 'scary as hell' i really mean 'tight pink shirt'." -kai[/spoiler][/i]


- Queen of All Spiders
- Posts: 4263
- Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
- NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
- MBTI Type: ENFP
- Location: Quebec, Canada!
Tsukatu wrote:That appeals to you?SlappyMcGee wrote:But in any case, yungerkid, you aren't arguing a case for Christianity, here. Because the God you're describing is not the one in the Bible, but is instead something which I can get behind; an all powerful being that we have no evidence of. And we can only speculate at this point.
I take the Dawkins approach to any "god" that's contained entirely within the universe: it couldn't have come into existence as a complex thing, but had to have been formed over a long period of time from much more simple forms, just like us. This is misusing the label "god," which ought to be reserved for something that did not come about this way (which he and I believe to be impossible).
Yeah, I agree, but I'm retarded! :D
Loathes
-
- Yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir
- Posts: 1561
- Joined: 2008.09.26 (12:33)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/incluye
- MBTI Type: ENTP
- Location: USofA
- Contact:
So, wait...are you treating the Christian God you don't believe in as a being contained entirely within the physical universe?Tsukatu wrote:I take the Dawkins approach to any "god" that's contained entirely within the universe: it couldn't have come into existence as a complex thing, but had to have been formed over a long period of time from much more simple forms, just like us. This is misusing the label "god," which ought to be reserved for something that did not come about this way (which he and I believe to be impossible).

- Retrofuturist
- Posts: 3131
- Joined: 2008.09.19 (06:55)
- MBTI Type: ENTP
- Location: California, USA
- Contact:
What? No.incluye wrote:So, wait...are you treating the Christian God you don't believe in as a being contained entirely within the physical universe?Tsukatu wrote:I take the Dawkins approach to any "god" that's contained entirely within the universe: it couldn't have come into existence as a complex thing, but had to have been formed over a long period of time from much more simple forms, just like us. This is misusing the label "god," which ought to be reserved for something that did not come about this way (which he and I believe to be impossible).
[spoiler="you know i always joked that it would be scary as hell to run into DMX in a dark ally, but secretly when i say 'DMX' i really mean 'Tsukatu'." -kai]"... and when i say 'scary as hell' i really mean 'tight pink shirt'." -kai[/spoiler][/i]


- Secretariat Ain't Got Nuthin' On This Shit
- Posts: 521
- Joined: 2009.01.08 (05:03)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
- MBTI Type: ISTJ
- Location: Huntington, WV
Anyone who has studied logic, the logical process, argumentation, debate, or any other form of reason with any manner of seriousness knows precisely the problem with "Arguments for God." There are no logical arguments for God. Belief in God is *entirely* a leap of faith, and nothing at all more than that. I'm not about to tell someone to stop their belief in something, but by the same token, I'd really enjoy it if they'd shut up about my lack thereof. This is, at its core, the only difference between a theist and an atheist; To an Atheist, God should follow *some* universal rule - Either he is not a being of infinite power as is claimed by a theist, or he is not a being. To a Theist, God cannot follow universal rules - He is a being of infinite power. Problem being, we can't know. Theists claim these things to be self-evident and true; Atheists look on confusedly, wondering exactly how someone could possibly be certain about something that has no logical proof. And that's my only question to any theists still involved in the discussion - How can you be certain?

Posts from the old forums: 11,194mintnut wrote:Oh my life, STRAP ON A PAIR! Get over it, make better maps, innit?
- Retrofuturist
- Posts: 3131
- Joined: 2008.09.19 (06:55)
- MBTI Type: ENTP
- Location: California, USA
- Contact:
You can't, man. Gotta have faith.Ampersand wrote:How can you be certain?
But for me, it's quite simple... when you see a painting, you reason there has to have been a painter, right?
And have you ever thought about bananas?
[spoiler="you know i always joked that it would be scary as hell to run into DMX in a dark ally, but secretly when i say 'DMX' i really mean 'Tsukatu'." -kai]"... and when i say 'scary as hell' i really mean 'tight pink shirt'." -kai[/spoiler][/i]


- Secretariat Ain't Got Nuthin' On This Shit
- Posts: 521
- Joined: 2009.01.08 (05:03)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
- MBTI Type: ISTJ
- Location: Huntington, WV
check my fb lolTsukatu wrote:You can't, man. Gotta have faith.Ampersand wrote:How can you be certain?
But for me, it's quite simple... when you see a painting, you reason there has to have been a painter, right?
And have you ever thought about bananas?

Posts from the old forums: 11,194mintnut wrote:Oh my life, STRAP ON A PAIR! Get over it, make better maps, innit?
- The Konami Number
- Posts: 586
- Joined: 2008.09.19 (12:27)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Atilla
Lies! I have observational evidence - the Flying Spaghetti Monster appeared unto me and exhorted me to scourge the unworthy with excessively hot sauce!Ampersand wrote: There are no logical arguments for God. Belief in God is *entirely* a leap of faith, and nothing at all more than that.
- Queen of All Spiders
- Posts: 4263
- Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
- NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
- MBTI Type: ENFP
- Location: Quebec, Canada!
Awwww. Poignant point turned atheist wankfest. WAY TO GO, TSUKATU. ONCE AGAIN YOU HAVE PERPETUATED RELIGION.
Loathes
- Albany, New York
- Posts: 521
- Joined: 2008.09.28 (02:00)
- MBTI Type: INTJ
- Location: Inner SE Portland, OR
- Contact:
I am personally familiar with three logical arguments demonstrating the existence of god, at least one of which has never been successfully refuted (the Ontological Argument). You can use simple logic to prove or disprove virtually anything, and proof of lack by lack of proof is never acceptable.Ampersand wrote:Anyone who has studied logic, the logical process, argumentation, debate, or any other form of reason with any manner of seriousness knows precisely the problem with "Arguments for God." There are no logical arguments for God. Belief in God is *entirely* a leap of faith, and nothing at all more than that. I'm not about to tell someone to stop their belief in something, but by the same token, I'd really enjoy it if they'd shut up about my lack thereof. This is, at its core, the only difference between a theist and an atheist; To an Atheist, God should follow *some* universal rule - Either he is not a being of infinite power as is claimed by a theist, or he is not a being. To a Theist, God cannot follow universal rules - He is a being of infinite power. Problem being, we can't know. Theists claim these things to be self-evident and true; Atheists look on confusedly, wondering exactly how someone could possibly be certain about something that has no logical proof. And that's my only question to any theists still involved in the discussion - How can you be certain?
First, The same concept of "proof of lack by lack of proof," as demonstrated by Russel's Teapot (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is really just a modern version of the Teapot), is unfortunately applied equally by both sides ("You can't prove that there's not a god" - "You can't prove that there is a god"). An argument cannot proceed effectively unless both sides mutually agree to drop this.
Second, We must agree that religion, in the eyes of the religious, is often a matter that transcends logical proof. Faith is often fundamentally defined as belief in something for which there is no proof - belief in things not seen. As such, attempts to prove or disprove the existence of god are ineffective. Of course, this means that neither side can definitely win, which is why such discussions are continuously unproductive (of course, in these discussions, as in many others, the value is in the discussion itself).
The concept that theists require that God have infinite power is in no way universal. from more dramatic examples (the Gnostics) to more subtle ones (7th day Adventists, I think), there's a broad range of christian and non-christian religions that believe that God must follow laws (universal laws, or laws of nature) that transcend even His power. Many believe even that God created only our galaxy, or even only our solar system, and is only a resident of space as a whole, just as we are. Arguments against God having infinite power are thus not effective against all theists or all Gods, only those theists that believe God's power to be unabridged and transcendent of all things.
-- I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take. --

Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.

Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.
- Yet Another Harshad
- Posts: 464
- Joined: 2008.09.26 (13:23)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/lord_day
- MBTI Type: INTJ
I think when you have a lack of proof of an objects existence, you can safely assume it doesn't exist. Otherwise, you might start believing anything exists. Do you believe that Russel's Teapot is real? I don't think so. While there is no proof that a teapot orbiting the Earth doesn't exist, we all assume it doesn't. The likely hood of it being there is so small that we take it not to be there.jean-luc wrote: First, The same concept of "proof of lack by lack of proof," as demonstrated by Russel's Teapot (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is really just a modern version of the Teapot), is unfortunately applied equally by both sides ("You can't prove that there's not a god" - "You can't prove that there is a god"). An argument cannot proceed effectively unless both sides mutually agree to drop this.

- Secretariat Ain't Got Nuthin' On This Shit
- Posts: 521
- Joined: 2009.01.08 (05:03)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
- MBTI Type: ISTJ
- Location: Huntington, WV
If you misuse logic, sure. You can use simple logic to do a number of things, but if you've ever studied hidden premises and logical validity theory, you'll know that even the ontological argument can be debunked successfully. Remind me when I have a spare few hours to get into it. Using the logical process, there has never been a successful argument for God - There is simply no way around that. If there were indeed an argument that stated without a doubt that God existed, then there wouldn't be any room for doubt. I've never had a successful argument for the lack thereof, either, but that's not what I put forth. The ontological argument is a simple misuse of the principles of logic, and nothing more. Necessary Nonexistence theory is the exact same thing for the Atheist's side - Both are horrendous misuses of logic, and should unequivocally be thrown out.jean-luc wrote:I am personally familiar with three logical arguments demonstrating the existence of god, at least one of which has never been successfully refuted (the Ontological Argument). You can use simple logic to prove or disprove virtually anything, and proof of lack by lack of proof is never acceptable.
Incorrect, mostly because I don't need to prove that there isn't a God. I just know that there may or may not be a God, and because of that, we can't claim either successfully. If you think back to all of these debates; All of these threads that have ever occurred, you begin to play a gigantic, celestial game of "Which came first?" where Theists claim something, and Atheists debunk it.First, The same concept of "proof of lack by lack of proof," as demonstrated by Russel's Teapot (and the Flying Spaghetti Monster, which is really just a modern version of the Teapot), is unfortunately applied equally by both sides ("You can't prove that there's not a god" - "You can't prove that there is a god"). An argument cannot proceed effectively unless both sides mutually agree to drop this.
The "win" comes not from actively disproving God, because we're not trying to disprove God, as I said in my last post. We're simply saying, "Stop telling me God is real, stop telling me that there are facts, because you're a crackpot, and none of that is true." It's not a matter of successfully putting forth an argument that states, "God is not real," all that needs to be done is make sure God cannot be proven to be real. If you notice, the Theists put unreasonable arguments forth, and the only thing any Atheist who is worth his salt will do is refute that argument.As such, attempts to prove or disprove the existence of god are ineffective. Of course, this means that neither side can definitely win, which is why such discussions are continuously unproductive (of course, in these discussions, as in many others, the value is in the discussion itself).
Fair enough, but a moot point in the end. Some people believe that "God" is Xenu, or that God is in each of us, or that God is sex incarnate. I, and an unbelievably large percentage of both theists and atheists argue/debate classical theism. I think my last post was pretty specific to that.The concept that theists require that God have infinite power is in no way universal. from more dramatic examples (the Gnostics) to more subtle ones (7th day Adventists, I think), there's a broad range of christian and non-christian religions that believe that God must follow laws (universal laws, or laws of nature) that transcend even His power. Many believe even that God created only our galaxy, or even only our solar system, and is only a resident of space as a whole, just as we are. Arguments against God having infinite power are thus not effective against all theists or all Gods, only those theists that believe God's power to be unabridged and transcendent of all things.
As I've asked from everyone else I've debated with - What denomination do you think I am? I always like to know perceptions of people I debate with.
Edit: And that's exactly the point. If I can't prove that there's a guy named "Sal Jacob DeVaughn" who sails the seven seas in search of booty and booty, then I'm not going to waste my time thinking about it. If I see something that convinces me otherwise, then by all means. Problem being, people see ghosts and UFOs and think that the Illuminati are stealing our thoughts and poisoning us through tainted chicken. Do I care? No, because none of these crackpots have any proof of what they believe. Thus, their belief is crazy unless they can point to something that makes some sort of logical sense.
I helped a lady in my store the other day who asked me if her TV could watch her, and who asserted that her Cell Phone was a two-way listening device, and she had to take the battery out so the sea people couldn't hear her. I asked her to prove that someone was listening, to which she said, "CAN'T YOU HEAR IT? IT'S ALL AROUND US!!!!" I see no tangible difference between her and any given theist in the setting of a debate.

Posts from the old forums: 11,194mintnut wrote:Oh my life, STRAP ON A PAIR! Get over it, make better maps, innit?
- Queen of All Spiders
- Posts: 4263
- Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
- NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
- MBTI Type: ENFP
- Location: Quebec, Canada!
Actually, Jean-Luc, I think the key problem with your first point is that many of us aren't trying to argue that there isn't some sort of God, just as we aren't trying to argue that there isn't some kind of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believe there might very well be a God, but the core to my argument is that if there is, he is not the God described in any religions I've heard of. Most have large "plotholes", inconsistencies, and ultimately, they do more harm than good. So, while there might be, and in my opinion, is a God, he is not the Christian God. (See the last twenty pages for more specific reasoning on that point.)
Loathes
- Albany, New York
- Posts: 521
- Joined: 2008.09.28 (02:00)
- MBTI Type: INTJ
- Location: Inner SE Portland, OR
- Contact:
Perhaps, but it seems that a large portion of the people debating here are referring to Christianity (or "classical religion" as one person says, although it is notable that Christianity isn't really very "classical" by most senses of the word) as all of religion, or as exemplary of all religion. As such, this tends to become an argument against all religions. Reading through the thread the bulk of arguments certainly seem to be against the existence of god, focusing on Christianity only because Christianity is considered the most 'mainstream' religion and/or because it is the one best represented here.SlappyMcGee wrote:Actually, Jean-Luc, I think the key problem with your first point is that many of us aren't trying to argue that there isn't some sort of God, just as we aren't trying to argue that there isn't some kind of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believe there might very well be a God, but the core to my argument is that if there is, he is not the God described in any religions I've heard of. Most have large "plotholes", inconsistencies, and ultimately, they do more harm than good. So, while there might be, and in my opinion, is a God, he is not the Christian God. (See the last twenty pages for more specific reasoning on that point.)
-- I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take. --

Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.

Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.
- Queen of All Spiders
- Posts: 4263
- Joined: 2008.09.29 (03:54)
- NUMA Profile: http://www.freeWoWgold.edu
- MBTI Type: ENFP
- Location: Quebec, Canada!
jean-luc wrote:Perhaps, but it seems that a large portion of the people debating here are referring to Christianity (or "classical religion" as one person says, although it is notable that Christianity isn't really very "classical" by most senses of the word) as all of religion, or as exemplary of all religion. As such, this tends to become an argument against all religions. Reading through the thread the bulk of arguments certainly seem to be against the existence of god, focusing on Christianity only because Christianity is considered the most 'mainstream' religion and/or because it is the one best represented here.SlappyMcGee wrote:Actually, Jean-Luc, I think the key problem with your first point is that many of us aren't trying to argue that there isn't some sort of God, just as we aren't trying to argue that there isn't some kind of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believe there might very well be a God, but the core to my argument is that if there is, he is not the God described in any religions I've heard of. Most have large "plotholes", inconsistencies, and ultimately, they do more harm than good. So, while there might be, and in my opinion, is a God, he is not the Christian God. (See the last twenty pages for more specific reasoning on that point.)
Mmmhmm, I perfectly agree with that.
Loathes
- The Konami Number
- Posts: 586
- Joined: 2008.09.19 (12:27)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/Atilla
Of course; that's kind of how things work. See, the thing is - as some people have already noted - is that very few people try to defend theism in general. Christians have no interest in showing, for example, that an atheist's objection to the existence of God doesn't apply to a pantheon of non-omnipotent deities, because it's how it applies to an omnipotent God that validates or invalidates their personal beliefs. And, of course, if a bunch of atheists and Christians are standing around, and you say "Thor doesn't exist!", everyone is just going to nod, which isn't terribly interesting. If someone wants to specifically bring up how things work with multiple deities and attempt to defend it, by all means go ahead and we'll deal with that, but since nobody wants to defend it at the moment there isn't much point bringing such matters up.jean-luc wrote:Perhaps, but it seems that a large portion of the people debating here are referring to Christianity (or "classical religion" as one person says, although it is notable that Christianity isn't really very "classical" by most senses of the word) as all of religion, or as exemplary of all religion. As such, this tends to become an argument against all religions. Reading through the thread the bulk of arguments certainly seem to be against the existence of god, focusing on Christianity only because Christianity is considered the most 'mainstream' religion and/or because it is the one best represented here.
- Retrofuturist
- Posts: 3131
- Joined: 2008.09.19 (06:55)
- MBTI Type: ENTP
- Location: California, USA
- Contact:
Then again, some of us don't make exceptions for any sort of theism in its silliness.Atilla wrote:of course, if a bunch of atheists and Christians are standing around, and you say "Thor doesn't exist!", everyone is just going to nod, which isn't terribly interesting. If someone wants to specifically bring up how things work with multiple deities and attempt to defend it, by all means go ahead and we'll deal with that, but since nobody wants to defend it at the moment there isn't much point bringing such matters up.
For example, here is, regardless of the details and regardless of which religion actually telling the story, how I see any creation myth: [ click me ]
[spoiler="you know i always joked that it would be scary as hell to run into DMX in a dark ally, but secretly when i say 'DMX' i really mean 'Tsukatu'." -kai]"... and when i say 'scary as hell' i really mean 'tight pink shirt'." -kai[/spoiler][/i]


- Albany, New York
- Posts: 521
- Joined: 2008.09.28 (02:00)
- MBTI Type: INTJ
- Location: Inner SE Portland, OR
- Contact:
I try to do so, but when I bring up limiting the omnipotence of god (as I have in the ~"Why did got create me" thread), it's rejected by both atheists and theists as being either outside the realm of possibility, irrelevant, or simply not the case.Atilla wrote:Of course; that's kind of how things work. See, the thing is - as some people have already noted - is that very few people try to defend theism in general. Christians have no interest in showing, for example, that an atheist's objection to the existence of God doesn't apply to a pantheon of non-omnipotent deities, because it's how it applies to an omnipotent God that validates or invalidates their personal beliefs. And, of course, if a bunch of atheists and Christians are standing around, and you say "Thor doesn't exist!", everyone is just going to nod, which isn't terribly interesting. If someone wants to specifically bring up how things work with multiple deities and attempt to defend it, by all means go ahead and we'll deal with that, but since nobody wants to defend it at the moment there isn't much point bringing such matters up.jean-luc wrote:Perhaps, but it seems that a large portion of the people debating here are referring to Christianity (or "classical religion" as one person says, although it is notable that Christianity isn't really very "classical" by most senses of the word) as all of religion, or as exemplary of all religion. As such, this tends to become an argument against all religions. Reading through the thread the bulk of arguments certainly seem to be against the existence of god, focusing on Christianity only because Christianity is considered the most 'mainstream' religion and/or because it is the one best represented here.
-- I might be stupid, but that's a risk we're going to have to take. --

Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.

Website! Photography! Robots! Facebook!
The latest computers from Japan can also perform magical operations.
- A group of powered mutants currently restricted to the grounds of the Xavier Institute.
- Posts: 199
- Joined: 2009.01.29 (01:29)
- NUMA Profile: http://nmaps.net/user/
- MBTI Type: INFP
- Location: Montreal
Diest! You should know, there is a certain circle of hell reserved for your kind; it's just you, Voltaire, and (eventually) Matt Groening. Enjoi!SlappyMcGee wrote:Actually, Jean-Luc, I think the key problem with your first point is that many of us aren't trying to argue that there isn't some sort of God, just as we aren't trying to argue that there isn't some kind of Flying Spaghetti Monster. I believe there might very well be a God, but the core to my argument is that if there is, he is not the God described in any religions I've heard of. Most have large "plotholes", inconsistencies, and ultimately, they do more harm than good. So, while there might be, and in my opinion, is a God, he is not the Christian God. (See the last twenty pages for more specific reasoning on that point.)
I agree with Tsukatu's link. Religions tend to be diverse only in details; the core beliefs are all powered by the same patently ridiculous engine. Christianity is simply the easiest to argue, because the odds are the people in the debate are more familiar with the Bible than with the Sagas. Any argument made against Christianity can be easily used against any other religion, especially since Christianity is mostly just a hodge-podge collection of preexisting myths anyway.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests