talkmagic.co.uk

People are entitled to believe what ever they wish to believe in but if they wish to engage in a rational discussion then there has to be rational ideas put forward.
I often argue with my Pentacostal girlfriend over the existence or non existence of God and have realise that Belivers and non believers are a discussing the same subject but in a totally different way.

Where as an athiests argument is based on a series of logical steps using both scientficic and historical evidence a believers argument seems to be based on an emotional level eg. I feel the presence of God, therefore I have faith therefore he exists.

An argument of this ilk cannot actually function to any conclusion as the athiest wishes to have a rational argument whereas the religious standpoint by definition is the rejection of rationality.

Also taking on board the existence of the bible of proof is not valid. Silence of the Lambs exists as a book but doesn't mean Hannibal Lector walks or has walked the earth.
A book of stories does not constitute evidence unless some other data can support the truth contained within.


I'm shutting up now as I know these arguments are circular

i feel thats the trap people fall into, especially with authors, is that they identify with the author's points to some degree, but maybe not absolutely all...

yet rarely feel the need to explore alternatives because overall their belief matches theres...so they then champion that person's books/films/view points as their own, without induvidualising (is that a word?) it all...

I agree with what you are saying. You have to look at all the information and make a choice based on evidence and fact. I'm sure dawkins and similar other authors would agree with that. I have read works on both sides, and am pretty weel read up on the bible. You probably couldn't say the same about the believers. Many of whom haven't even read their own book. I have mentioned some things that are written in the bible to some people. And they have point blank refused to exept that it is in there.

Agreed abraxus, it doesn't make the argument redundant. The difference between custard monsters and God is that God has some basis - namely the Bible. Whether or not that constitutes as proof to you or not is neither here nor there; what is important is that it is proof enough for some. There is some kind of reason for believing in God which is why it is worthy of debate. Currently there are no reasons for believing in Custard Monsters, or any other number of such things, and so they are not worth bothering with right now.

The bible is no proof of god what so ever. If you look at when it was written, who wrote it, why certain books were chosen, how many times it has been revised, and all the contradictions in it then it is impossible to take it seriously. Even the more recent writing, namely the gospels, contradict themselves, have howling historical inaccuracies, and the authors had never even met Jesus. Just because their is a book, written by man, means nothing.
If I wrote a book about the life of the custard monster, or claimed that delia smiths pudding recipe book was symbolic about how we should live our life, would you take me seriously?

Also, Christians make the point theat jesus was quite 'radical' for the time. And came to change the bad things wriiten in the old testement.

1. If jesus was so radical, why wasn't 'he' a 'she', and why weren't any of his disciple women?
2. Jesus actually says the 'old' laws should be adhered to.
3. Isn't god omnipotent. If he was, then he would have seen that he was going to change his mind about being a violent and jealous god in preference for a loving god, and wouldn't have made the choice to be violent and jealous in the first place. The fact that god has to send jesus down to change his mind for him, makes god fallible. Which he apparently isn't!

I know this is off on a tangent, but I have never had a good answer to this question, and wondered if anyone could give one.

i think there's parallels though...most people believe in "luck", yet what is it exactly? does that exist? why believe in good fortune and accept that, there might be proof - but is that proof real, its certainly not testable proof...

but quite alot of us atheists believe in luck blindly, yet dont put that under the microscope as much as say religion...and even being an atheist is still a belief...we just dont knock on people's doors asking them to accept nothing into their lives...

there's lots of things we can't comprehend, whether thats cos of language, or something just beyond us at the moment...

where our thoughts come from, why lucid dreaming works for some, but not all (i know you can apparently train yourself to), why we are naturally good at somethings, yet others arent, luck, why our hearts genuinely ache when we have it broken - all kinds of things...

the world's a strange beautiful thing....i dont want to break everything down into distinct boxes personally speaking, spoils the fun sometimes...its like finding out how OOTW works for the first time, you think...oooh very clever...is that it though?

there's beauty in simplicity...we are all modern primatives still, only a hundred years or so ago and we would shove our children up chimneys, put lead in ice cream and opium was freely available from your local docks...and we still shame ourselves by blowing each other up...yes, quite often in the name of religion...

but i dont think religion is all bad...if it gives some scared old lady a bit of hope sitting in a hospital ward by herself, well, who am i to go and whisper in her ear "oy...it doesnt exist love...you're making a fool of yourself..."

let her, if it provides comfort where others don't care or can't be @rsed...well...good on her...it might even do her some good....

This thread to me looks like :

There is a god we have the bible

There isn’t a god we have Node in toy land and Node didn’t exist.

Does it really matter? One man believes in something he takes comfort from one disagrees, one harps on about science being the be all and all of something. don’t you think the arguments are similar.

“what is the world made of?”
“Atoms”
“how do you know ever seen one”
“well some added this idea to it and that idea, and then this”

How is the different from :

“what is the world made from?”
“gods love”
“how do you know?”
“the bible. Some one wrote about this that and the other”

I don’t believe in god I am a card carrying atheist but if you want to believe in it you do that so longs you are not getting in my way then I really don’t care, and lets face it some of the greatest buildings in the world are erected by those who faith so at least there is a legacy of great buildings.

This whole god is god isn’t argument is old as the hills, who cares at the end of the day, those who don’t believe have nothing to worry about, those who do have some kind of crutch to lean on.

I don’t believe in dark matter either so stick that under your microscopes.

Did I say it was proof? Not at all. Rather that the fact that there is some basis for Christianity which has resulted in many believers. That is what makes it worthy for debate.

I'm an atheist, it should be noted, but I'm tepmted to ask what's your evidence, your reasons for saying that the authors have ever met Jesus? Can you claim to KNOW that, for sure? It may sound pedantic, but it's a question worth asking.

In fact, as you are supposed to believe in God, to have faith in him, then how do you know that He has not tampered with things to prevent their ever being any concrete evidence in support of his existance? To weed out the believers from the non-believers? Yes, I know, it's all unfalsifiable, which is why I agree that I don't think there will ever be any conclusion to the debate.

And abraxus and Markdini, nicely put!

In response to the whole who created God?...and who created that God?.. and so on ad infinitum...This argument is no more or less redundant than Darwin's THEORY of natural selection which people are very quick to accept as truth...In my opinion scientists (sweepingly judgemental I realise) sit on a proverbial intellectual high horse, pretending that all their work is based on pure logic and absolute truth, which I am afraid does not hold water for me at all...Take for example when the medical profession makes a diagnosis of exclusion (the much controversial CFS to name but one)...Logic and reason seems to be thrown out in these cases because they simply do not know what is wrong with someone... and so put it in its own miscellaneous thread...Hardly sound logic and reason at play there...

More specifically on Darwinism: In my (albeit very limited) experience) Scientists, Humans as a species, barring some more philosophically minded people, are reluctant to believe that something can come from nothing...Sceptics are quick to dismiss this notion when the topic of a higher being comes up but are just as quick to jump on the bandwagon when evolution is mentioned...hypocritical much...

As for my own beliefs in the matter...I honestly have no idea what the reality of God's existence and the truth about Darwinism is but curiously rather than finding myself contemplating 'when did this begin?', 'who made God's God?', 'If we came from monkeys, where did the monkey come from?', I find myself more often asking 'Why am i thinking this?'...to which always comes the answer...I do not know...When I do know, you will find me in the dictionary under 'most famous philosopher ever!..

No malice to anyone’s beliefs are intended by this post...I, like lady of mystery, agree that people are entitled to believe whatever they wish so long as they are open to other schools of thought and when asked can defend that belief with cogent conversation...

Thanks for taking the time to read my thoughts....

And why are we only talking about the christian god here why not all the others......

i think there's parallels though...most people believe in "luck", yet what is it exactly? does that exist? why believe in good fortune and accept that, there might be proof - but is that proof real, its certainly not testable proof...

If I tossed a coin 100 times and iit landed on heads every time, that would be lucky. Yet it has an equal chance as every other combination. Luck is a matter of probabilities. Nothing supernatural (though I know you aren't claiming it to be). Also it is only us humans that put put, for example, a meaning or a value onto the coin landing heads up 100 times.

why our hearts genuinely ache when we have it broken

Perhaps during evolution, this feeling made it more likely that people would stay together and reproduce, and then care for their young together instead of leaving.
Also, you could claim, that to a certain degree, we learn to love. People who have never been shown love, often have trouble showing it themselves.

why we are naturally good at somethings

I'm very tall and slim. When I was young and tried a few sports out, I was rubbish at rugby, but very good at basketball. As a result I practiced basketblass, and didn't bother with rugby
Can someone be naturally gifted at magic? I'd say no. You have to practice.

The world is indeed a strange and beautiful thing. Then why do we have to look to the heavens to find beauty, when the beauty is staring you in the face every morning. And the more you understand about the world, the more amazing it seems.

[/quote]

Speaking of the bible and how Christians put there faith in it. All my family are church every Sunday types except me my brother who has a deep rooted interest in science said this to me

“I don’t believe in everything the bible actually I don’t believe in most of it” ,
“and that thing about the read sea is a bit far fetched if you ask me”

i think people are naturally good at magic...they just have the knack...some pick up the pass in ten minutes, some struggle and have to buy an expensive dvd to learn it (like me)...

but you're guilty of your own fallacy (Where's tomo when i need him!) there - surely you cant deem or label anything as "lucky", you should never even use the word as luck doesnt exist...

fun this isnt it?!

i think the heavens thing is purely that, its because we cant easily explore it, but we can rip the hell out of the earth and have a good sniff round...

well, im 6ft 2", quite broad and big with a bit of lard on top of my pyhsical soup, have a background in wado ryu, boxing and rugby...yet, im rather graceful on the dancefloor and have these rather delicate wrists and hands

i was good at rugby, discus and javelin, but could also hurdle like a demon too...that all came naturally to me...i didnt really "learn" it...which brings me to my other thought...

we can learn to sing, but there's a whole bunch of people who are naturally good singers...who just decided to try and open their cake-hole one day and out it all poured...

thats something that cant really be explained scientifically surely?

And why are we only talking about the christian god here why not all the others......

I'm not, though I do know more about christianity as I was one.
Most of the arguments a relevant whichever belief you are talking about, and the books just as bloody.

we can learn to sing, but there's a whole bunch of people who are naturally good singers...who just decided to try and open their cake-hole one day and out it all poured...

thats something that cant really be explained scientifically surely?

But is what we believe to be a 'good' singing voice, mean anything. If an alien landed on our planet, they may have a totally different aesthetic point of view. And you will find a range of different singing voices on the earth, as you would expect.

“I don’t believe in everything the bible actually I don’t believe in most of it”

Then I would answer, 'how do you decide which bits to believe?'

As for my own beliefs in the matter...I honestly have no idea what the reality of God's existence and the truth about Darwinism is but curiously rather than finding myself contemplating 'when did this begin?', 'who made God's God?', 'If we came from monkeys, where did the monkey come from?', I find myself more often asking 'Why am i thinking this?'...to which always comes the answer...I do not know...When I do know, you will find me in the dictionary under 'most famous philosopher ever!..

The question of the infinite regress is one put forward by believers, not atheists, or darwinians. Their answer is to end the regress quite conveniently with God. Without fully understanding that a being so complicated will also be subject to the same regress.

but I'm tepmted to ask what's your evidence, your reasons for saying that the authors have ever met Jesus? Can you claim to KNOW that, for sure? It may sound pedantic, but it's a question worth asking.

Well, even biblical scholars believe this, And you would think that if they had met Jesus, they would have got their stories straight and not contradicted each other, and known history.

“what is the world made of?”
“Atoms”
“how do you know ever seen one”
“well some added this idea to it and that idea, and then this”

How is the different from :

“what is the world made from?”
“gods love”
“how do you know?”
“the bible. Some one wrote about this that and the other”

Atoms we can prove, unfortunately too well, god we can't.

Can you prove them 100%

Can you prove them 100%

Well, tell the people of hiroshima and nagasaki that you don't believe in atoms. Was that destruction only 50% probable, or even 99% probable?