I am for the existence of a creator being. If anyone wants to debate the subject one on one, I would be happy to oblige.
Lets rock! =)
Lets rock! =)
Existence of God ~ Which is more rational ~ Atheism or Belief in God
- Thread starter Mr Average
- Start date
Who is more rational?
A person who wants at least a shred of evidence before they consider the possibility that there are fairys at the end of the garden or someone who decides that the garden must be packed with them because it cannot be proven 100% that they doesn't exist?
A person who wants at least a shred of evidence before they consider the possibility that there are fairys at the end of the garden or someone who decides that the garden must be packed with them because it cannot be proven 100% that they doesn't exist?
I know this has been covered a lot, but what the hell...
If anyone thinks that Atheism, not Agnosticism is a more reasonable world-view than the belief in a God, let me know and we will decide debate structure from there.
If anyone thinks that Atheism, not Agnosticism is a more reasonable world-view than the belief in a God, let me know and we will decide debate structure from there.
Red Whispers said:
Agnosticism is a cop out by atheists who want to bet both ways.
It is logical to believe in only those things that we can prove and/or believe in the potential existance of things that might be suggested by some sort of evidence.
Since there are so many religious people in the world it is beyond belief that some sort of proof/evidence worthy of the name hasn't come to light yet.
God isn't dead becase he never existed.
Wibble said:
Does this mean you accept my challenge?
Challenge?
Wibble said:
only messing! =)what I mean is, would you like to debate this with me one on one? I know you are a keen follower of science and reject many religious notions out of hand. You sound like the ideal debater for this subject...
Wibble said:
Which is why it's the most rational stance.
As Blaise Pascal said, "If God exists and I don't believe in Him, I go to hell when I die. If he doesn't exist and I don't believe in Him, nothing happens. So I'll believe in Him."
If an omnipotent, benevolent God existed, we wouldn't have had a history of horrible violence and slaughter, women would want the same things as men, and Abramovich wouldn't have bought Chelsea. Simple as.
Plechazunga said:
If an omnipotent, benevolent God existed, we wouldn't have had a history of horrible violence and slaughter, women would want the same things as men, and Abramovich wouldn't have bought Chelsea. Simple as.
I have a theory that God has given up.
It goes like this. God exists, right, and he wants to make something of us, His children. So he speaks to some bloke in the far past and Judaism / Ancient Christianity is born. Then the children of Israel start getting stroppy and instead of obliterating us and starting over, He reckons that he could give us a telling off, sort of like calling us into the headmaster's office kind of thing. He sends down another bloke called Jesus Christ, who spreads the word of God and dies for it. But no matter, Neo-Christianity is born, and for a time humanity moves just like He wants. Then the church starts to get too hide-bound and corrupt so God tries again. Hell, the telling off method worked for a while the last time didn't it? So He talks again, this time to a bloke called Mohamed, and Islam is born.
Problem is, now the believers of the 3 versions of God's word are beginning to cannibalise each other and fight among themselves. It's not inconceivable that God is simply getting pissed off and decides that this humanity lark was a waste of time anyway, and he'd get much better results if he wiped the board clean and starts again...
Interesting what that absinthe shit can do for you...
spinoza said:
I have a theory that God has given up.
It goes like this. God exists, right, and he wants to make something of us, His children. So he speaks to some bloke in the far past and Judaism / Ancient Christianity is born. Then the children of Israel start getting stroppy and instead of obliterating us and starting over, He reckons that he could give us a telling off, sort of like calling us into the headmaster's office kind of thing. He sends down another bloke called Jesus Christ, who spreads the word of God and dies for it. But no matter, Neo-Christianity is born, and for a time humanity moves just like He wants. Then the church starts to get too hide-bound and corrupt so God tries again. Hell, the telling off method worked for a while the last time didn't it? So He talks again, this time to a bloke called Mohamed, and Islam is born.
Problem is, now the believers of the 3 versions of God's word are beginning to cannibalise each other and fight among themselves. It's not inconceivable that God is simply getting pissed off and decides that this humanity lark was a waste of time anyway, and he'd get much better results if he wiped the board clean and starts again...
Interesting what that absinthe shit can do for you...
Or maybe.............
As dinosaurs were around so long maybe God invented it all to play with them...it all went pear shaped so it buggered off to play with something else and we humans are a parasitic lifeform that has evolved whilst no-one was watching...........
or not
spinoza said:
Cop out.
I don't believe that there are little Green men with huge lazer guns on Mars who are about to invade and zap me because there is no proof. It makes no sense to go around telling people that I think that there might be little green men with zap guns because they would see me for the nutter I would obvioulsy be. The same logic applies to religion as far as I am concerned. We only usually believe because we were brainwashed as kids and fear keeps us in.
However, I am opn to believing almost anything as long as there is something to suggest a hypothesis that can then be tested.
Wibble said:
Believing is the most rational response though.
Minimum cost for maximum benefit
They used the Pascal matrix to drive home rationality and indifference curves in Economics 101... which was a nice thought. It alienated all the religious types in the class
Religion is slowly becoming a relic of the past isn't it. Its hard to mislead people now that much of the globe is online, and people are finding out that we share more in common than not. Its going to continue to fizzle out as soon as the third world gets online in the coming decades. You watch.
in an answer to the original question atheism is certainly more rational than belief in god. but an important thing to remember is that there is more to life than simply rationality. that's doesn't automatically mean god is three persons or that i get a harem after i die, but that there are possibilities of encounters outside rationality and reasoning.
in my opinion football is an excellent example of a quasi-religion in that it is not completely made up of reason and rationale. there are other aspects like tradition (which are not always rational) as well as simply being unable to explain REASONABLY why a person should support a shit third division team instead of the best performing team. what is one of the most boring nations to watch? germany? and why should that be surprising? humans want more than simply rational explanations for everything. that may not mean we can come to "certainty" about our beliefs but i still refuse to completely disregard non-scientific "truths."
in my opinion football is an excellent example of a quasi-religion in that it is not completely made up of reason and rationale. there are other aspects like tradition (which are not always rational) as well as simply being unable to explain REASONABLY why a person should support a shit third division team instead of the best performing team. what is one of the most boring nations to watch? germany? and why should that be surprising? humans want more than simply rational explanations for everything. that may not mean we can come to "certainty" about our beliefs but i still refuse to completely disregard non-scientific "truths."
spinoza said:Believing is the most rational response though.
Minimum cost for maximum benefit
They used the Pascal matrix to drive home rationality and indifference curves in Economics 101... which was a nice thought. It alienated all the religious types in the class
You can explain the tactic of believing in game theory quite nicely. In effect you do hedge your bets and get the best of both worlds. But social tactics aside you just can't operate by believing everything you can't disprove. It is simply illogical.
And the reason that Religion survives and that you can explain it's existence using game theory relies on the majority of humans not being entirely logical/rational. If we were the "payoff" of believing would change and the game results would be very different.
even though if religion faded, there would still be a huge amont of christians..we dont need a church to grow in the spirit, to worship, etc..for me i dont even go to church cuz i cant find a church full of people that are full of *cliques*. this is one reason im against religion all together....i dont need religion, i believe in jesus christ, thats enough for me..and i dont care what you try to do to to make me disbelief, it wont work...you say if god existed, why does he let all the people suffer, well i have something to say, he gave us something called free will, and he can not take away free will..all the suffering and killings are choices made from freewill...God is a mad dictator of the world but a loving creator and ruler of all...and many believe you can go to heaven by good works, well you cant, only through jesus, but im not here to preach..just stating the facts..Raoul said:Religion is slowly becoming a relic of the past isn't it. Its hard to mislead people now that much of the globe is online, and people are finding out that we share more in common than not. Its going to continue to fizzle out as soon as the third world gets online in the coming decades. You watch.
that might, and only might, work for some evangelical protestants, but probably not for catholics. and anyways if the church disapears what does that say about god? and if there isn't any need for the church why have one at all?reddiebeach11 said:
that is a fact???reddiebeach11 said:
they are for me, but i know that they arnt for alot of people here, i mean they are facts for mefarawaylands said:
the true church are the believers, not the building and has been mislead as being the buildingfarawaylands said:
Where exactly is this 'Heaven'?
Can I get there via space shuttle?
Can I get there via space shuttle?
Wibble said:
Ofcourse a rational stand is one based on a shred of evidence, atleast. But what is irrational is having that shred of evidence and discounting it wholesale, just bec one is ignorant or self biased abt the subject.
1) I had posted proof abt the potential existence of a divine being or superpower in the ET thread, where there is concrete proof that a "simple miracle" happened. But it was discounted without any verification or even any logical investigation. And i had first hand experience in it as well, something which science has failed to explain till date.
2) My challenge on astrology, i asked if anyone would hv a try at astrology. The theory being, the planets do have a great influence on our daily lifes, fortunes and misfortunes. Yet, no one is game enough.
Common, dont just sit there and discuss. If you wanna prove something, get your hands dirty pals. Its not enough to keep saying God does not exist when you guys dont even want to try a simple experiment which could throw your believes into disarray. Fear, i suppose!
Some good comments are being made here.
I would like to reiterate my desire to debate an Atheist one on one, in another thread, on which is the more reasonable world view, Atheism or Belief in God?
If anyone is a strong supporter in the Belief that there is no God, please PM me or reply in this message and we can organise debate parameters.
RW
I would like to reiterate my desire to debate an Atheist one on one, in another thread, on which is the more reasonable world view, Atheism or Belief in God?
If anyone is a strong supporter in the Belief that there is no God, please PM me or reply in this message and we can organise debate parameters.
RW
Wibble said:
We all choose to have faith. The object of faith varies wildly from person to person.
Money
Love
Science
Friends
Truth
Government
Our employers
Holy Books
Religious leaders...
The choices are enormous... My choice is God. I will debate my choice.
What is your choice? Will you debate it?
Red Whispers said:
As you can see the various comments in this thread, God simply does not exist. So why dont you start debating here/now instead of organising a debate with parameters etc?
Anticipating with bated breath......
The King said:As you can see the various comments in this thread, God simply does not exist. So why dont you start debating here/now instead of organising a debate with parameters etc?
Anticipating with bated breath......
Would you like to debate me?
RW
Red Whispers said:Would you like to debate me?
RW
Depends, on what your stand is...i for one, believe in God or some superior being! Bring it on, if you feel otherwise!
The King said:Depends, on what your stand is...i for one, believe in God or some superior being! Bring it on, if you feel otherwise!
I assume you did not read the OP or my subsequent posts in this thread?
RW
Red Whispers said:
What is with you and a formal debate format? Dear lord.
And just to let you know, you will never convince those who don't believe (I, for one, am a strong believer) that there is a god.
And as an aside, how do you enter into a debate on the existence of god?
continuing, what are the benifits of debating the existence of god? debating involves reasons and thus if you convince someone of something by reasons how is that belief? how can it be a decision to believe in a god if there are debated reasons that convince you of the existence of a god?mathiaslg said:
no offense red whispers but it sounds like you just want to play a game of "lawyers" : a little arguement, a little rhetoric and a little bit of domination. the fact that you demand or challenge, "to debate with ME," seems to imply that you have something that the rest of us don't have, some knowledge about the existence of god and i can't help but think that's a little ridiculous.
Sorry to intrude upon your interesting discussion but is this thread even related to Current Events?
Philosophical and Religious Crap forum should be the new name for it.
Do you need incidents like the Madrid bomb to start a proper thread in this forum?Are there not enough events happenning the world over?
Philosophical and Religious Crap forum should be the new name for it.
Do you need incidents like the Madrid bomb to start a proper thread in this forum?Are there not enough events happenning the world over?
Wibble said:
Look at it this way, if you are an atheist and I am a christian and when we both die we find out that my belief was unfounded then we both gain nothing, but if my God exists then I gain everything and you lose the lot. So do you sit on the fence or are you going to wait for 'Proof', remember it costs nothing to believe.
redfan said:
It costs me my intellectual integrity.
And if there did turn out to be a God and he frowns on people who demand evidence before "believing" in the potential existence of something then I want no part of him and his pathetic mind games anyway.
DONADO said:
Pedant.
And I don't see you starting any threads in here Mr Interesting
mathiaslg said:
Well if you are The King you invent/imagine that you saw a miracle including a statue of the madonna with the big boobies seeping milk. Or some such insanity.
Gives religious nutters a bad name
Red Whispers said:
I believe that all the things you list exist (or may do so) because there is some evidence of their existence. And I don't have faith per se. I make as rational a choice as possible about each item, regarding importance and meaning, based on the evidence in my possesion.
If we are talking about belief in terms of predicting future behaviour based on past behaviour, evidence and/or past relationships then that is very different from the blind faith we are talking about when discussing religion. That is based on tradition, mysticism and indoctrination.
The King said:
1) You are mad or deluded. Mass hysteria or fraud are the most likely explanations.
2) Astrology is complete and utter bollocks. Any scientific examinations that have taken place have shown that it's predictive powers are random (i.e.nil).
Wibble said:Well if you are The King you invent/imagine that you saw a miracle including a statue of the madonna with the big boobies seeping milk. Or some such insanity.
Gives religious nutters a bad name
The choice from God is believe in Jesus and what he stood for not in miracles. I made a rational choice, I was brought up in a religious environment, sunday school, church choir the usual churchy thing. But after a while I tired of it, it was all too familiar, boring, and so I looked at the alternative religions and they all had one thing in common, a set of rules in the form of a Bible or whatever each religion called it and whatever the book said, you did, that was until I read the Book in my case the Bible. I quickly discovered that what I was being taught was not what I was reading, you see the Bible is written in such a way that you have to interpret yourself if you don't you are following the reader be he vicar, priest, whatever, you have to learn what God is saying to YOU. I don't stand out in a crowd and I don't preach religion, I am just an ordinary guy but I am a believer, I never hide the fact of what I am but I don't push it, we all have a choice and I made mine.