Religious/Evolutionary Debate Thread

[Stilgar]

Have I ever mentioned the time some female door to door evangelists came to my house?
My friends and I invited them in to the lounge and got them to tell us bible stories and set up their miniature diorama with jesus and the donkey and stuff. Then we hit on them hardout until they left.

They were cute.

 

[happydeadguy]

 

[Frostblood]

Should have said...

Have I ever mentioned the time some female door to door evangelists came to my house?
My friends and I invited them in to the lounge and got them to tell us bible stories and set up their miniature diorama with jesus and the donkey and stuff. Then we hit on them hardout until they left.

They were cute.

"I'm having trouble visualizing Eve in the Garden of Eden before she was ashamed of her nakedness. Help me out?"

 

[oosyxxx]

Sure, anti-theists, go ahead and smear a person's personal beliefs that they can't prove, but I think I'm siding with the deists on this one. Like them, I've held a steadfast faith for a long time. My belief is strongly rooted in what I feel, and what I feel, I know. In fact the more effort I put into my faith, the stronger the feeling. What is my belief, you might ask. Quite frankly, and powerfully, I have an undying faith, an unshakable belief, if you will, that George W. Bush has nasal-vacuumed beaucoup blow. Criticize me if you will, laugh at me, just like it said you would in the Bible, but I feel this, brothers and sisters, and really, who are you to question my faith or anyone else's? Who are you to--gasp--demand proof?

 

[GoAt]

Who are you to--gasp--demand proof?

science demands proof

 

[Stilgar]

I wonder if osyxxx was being sarcastic....

Naaah.

 

[Cat Fuzz]

bah

 

[Nachimir]

Did you know...

 

[Nachimir]

... no longer, it seems to imply.

(That's an unaltered pulp fiction cover)

 

[QUALTHWAR]

Was just thinking about the "prove god is real" question...

Let's say, just for arguments sake, god is real, and that god decides to visit qualth in spectral form, and he tells qualth he needs to fight the good fight and choose the path to enlightenment. Understandably, Qualth is shocked. The visitation seemed very real and he knew he wasn't dreaming (lets say he was in public at the time) His life changes forever. His world view is completely throttled by this event.

Now Qualthwar has a big problem. He can't prove this event happened, he can't trust his rational instincts like he used to, and he wants to rationalise the event so that it makes sense in his corporal realm.

He finally decides to come here and tell everyone he met god and god could be real. We know it would be a pointless exercise. Qualth would be dismayed at his inability to prove anything, and It would be no surprise if the vast majority of ppl scoffed at him and called him a nutter/troll or whatever.

Qualth now has some decisions to make. Qualth could dismiss the visitation as an illusion he conjured up in his head. (remember we're assuming god is real) Alternatively, he could embrace christianity and still retain some of his rational ethos. At worst, he goes mad and is admitted.

With this in mind, why would an intelligent god visit anyone in this realm? He knows it's going to be a rather pointless exercise. Even a mass visitation would be fobbed off by sceptics as an act, or the result of chemicals and tricks used to enduce the illusion. If he was feeling optimistic god could speak to everyone and and have all the converts he ever wanted, but he gets plenty on converts without the visitation anway, so why bother?



I think god is a cynic.

I usually don’t indulge in hypothetical situations because they’re mostly only good as an academic exercise.

But just to reply as an academic exercise, I would doubt the person is god. I believe there is alien life in the universe that is far more advanced than we are. Just as we can persuade a dog to come into another room by placing food on the floor, a superior alien could easily fool us and we wouldn’t have the metal capacity to determine they were god. Now, if I believed in god the way some religious people do, it would be a different story. But the hypothetical situation wouldn’t have any relevance to me then.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

My christian teachings said that good deeds, living a good life, and all that jazz had no affect on whether or not you went to heaven. It was all about john 3:16.

All you have to do is believe that jesus dies for your sins and accept him into your life (believe he died for you) and then you would go to heaven…..wherever the hell that is.

I was taught that heaven is a perfect place and god won’t allow imperfection into heaven. Therefore, to become perfect when you hit the pearly gates, you have to believe jesus died on the cross for your sins.

So going by their idea, even a little kid who sins will not be perfect when he gets to heaven unless he accepted jesus while still alive. People who don’t know better because they are retarded, or go into a comma before getting an chance to accept christ, or little kids who sin even once will all go to hell if they don’t believe in the “jesus died for you” thing. Pretty screwed up, I know. This was just one more reason for me to start questioning the whole god thing.

 

[Nachimir]

That is only one type of Christianity (which infuses a few brands, I think). Good deeds are quite important to JWs, or I should say "good deeds": one thing that drove me away was realising that to appear a good christian in their eyes could mean doing stuff that wasn't actually all that good.

I was faced with going to a routine meeting, or staying home to listen to a suicidal ex-witness. He needed someone, and it's one of the few opportunities I've ever had to provide genuine, significant help to another human being. But Witnesses have a policy of ignoring ex-members; I lost face for missing a meeting and felt I could not speak of the reason why. But my conscience told me I'd done the best thing. It struck me later that many of the motions I went through that made other Witnesses say I was a good example were quite superficial, and that being good to others could mean breaking the rules.

I'm not saying that's the case for all Christian denominations, but it is a reason that I think faith based beliefs can be quite harmful when they enter the realm of human interaction.

I think the beginnings of the universe are possibly beyond our comprehension, and along with the circumstances and processes that led to our presence on this planet, are not particularly relevant to the way we treat each other. I need no god to impel me to do good to others or myself; to love is naturally human, and it has good consequences. I have no leader, no need to obey or submit, and yet, to the consternation of some religious people, that does not make me act like a selfish monster.

If I were killed in a fiery apocalype or sent to hell for living a good, free-thinking life, then I would do it proudly and maintain that god is unjust.

 

[Evil_Cope]

I usually don’t indulge in hypothetical questions because they’re mostly only good as an academic exercise.

And this debate is any more usefulll? Answer the man's question, Q. Dodging them was, after all, what we moaned at vision for in the first place.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

And this debate is any more usefulll? Answer the man's question, Q. Dodging them was, after all, what we moaned at vision for in the first place.

What question? He just presented some hypothetical situation. I don’t think he asked me a question.

Hypothetical situations are probably the opposite of what we’re trying to do here. Anybody can create hypothetical situations and wonder what it would be like to be superman, but pretending about how things would be doesn’t do much. What if you could fly, what if you had a spaceship, what if you had a billion dollars, what if you had 3 wishes?

I’ve tried to present facts and strong arguments. In fact, I’d hoped that’s what this thread was all about: presenting facts and evidence and good arguments to support those things.

 

[Stilgar]

"I’ve tried to present facts and strong arguments. In fact, I’d hoped that’s what this thread was all about: presenting facts and evidence and good arguments to support those things."

You can present facts and arguments here all you want and still not get a consensus or a strictly formal debate. Remember, not everybody here is a qualified physicist. Not everyone understands the concepts, maths, and terms used to decribe your evidence, so any general understanding drawn from these facts often travels laterally, not downwards to us laymen. I'm guessing that there are some people here who believe you on principal. They may not fully understand the exact nature of what you're talking about, but they think you're right anyway because you're a rationalist, and after that there is not much more to talk about. A fair judgment? maybe... This is probably why the topic strays off-track so often. No offence, but I think people get bored of the stodgy formailty and want to talk to people who dont drone on like a text book.

Tell you what... if you want a real debate, why dont you go and find a board full of qualified physicists and/or academic theologists? You're bound to get more knowledgeable answers than you would here.

 

[QUALTHWAR]

i think you're missing the bigger picture. I said this:

Hypothetical situations are probably the opposite of what we’re trying to do here.

I’m only one cog in the wheel. By “we,” I’m talking about people on both sides of the argument. I hoped both sides would present good arguments. I don’t get too technical when I post. I try to give examples or analogies so people can more easily understand my message. I was technical when I was debunking that list of stuff from the site I found, but for the most part, I’m staying down to earth.

 

[Stilgar]

"I’m talking about people on both sides of the argument."

Please explain... WHAT ARGUMENT?

The Evolution Vs Creationism one?

Science Versus Religion?

Was this truly supposed to be a proper debate? What was the aim of this supposed debate? It wasn't stated in your first post. Everyone here at NC knows that this subject has been done to death. Coming into this thread I don't believe you were ever prepared to take a fundamentalist faith based perspective seriously. Ever. The result of this thread was foretold long before it was even created.

If someone were to provide factual evidence that gives merit to a contrary evolutionary theory (not a stated fact based on scripture) do you think it would come from one of the highly religous people here? Even if it did, would it be a religous perspective or a rational, logic based argument?

You can debunk creationism on logical grounds for ever and ever, BUT THE RELIGIOUS TYPES HERE WONT CHANGE THEIR MINDS, RATIONAL ARGUMENTS PROBABLY DIDN'T GET THEM TO WHERE THEY ARE NOW. The best people to talk to about the possible shortcomings of the evolution theory are OTHER RATIONALISTS. And by now it's not even a debate! You're just sharing ideas and teaching each other about evolution! You would have to restate some contrary ideas about how exactly evolution worked and how we came to be and go from there.

Science is just a method and Religion is a lot more than a story about how the world and everything came to be. I think the idea that this thread involves a proper argument/debate is bizarre.

 

[Mister_Prophet]

I'm about as lay as a man can get and I understood most of what he said. As someone who considers himself mathematically illiterate the only thing Q said that made my brain bleed was the equation garbage. But I don't think any of the scientific stuff anyone has said in here even remotely qualifies as physicist-speak. If anything, all the scientific stuff has mostly been explained in a nutshell.

 

[Stilgar]

"You would have to restate some contrary ideas about how exactly evolution worked and how we came to be and go from there."

btw if this has been done then I missed it and OOPS!, my bad!

There is so much fluff in this thread that I couldn't be bothered reading EVERY page.

 

[bobtheking]

I'm about as lay as a man can get and I understood most of what he said. As someone who considers himself mathematically illiterate the only thing Q said that made my brain bleed was the equation garbage. But I don't think any of the scientific stuff anyone has said in here even remotely qualifies as physicist-speak. If anything, all the scientific stuff has mostly been explained in a nutshell.

yes, me or especially Q have not said anything that isn't taught in a basic high school chemistry/physics class.

edit: i realize people forget stuff, but it shouldn't be the first time any of us have seen most of it.