Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Religous Excercise

Jarjar3000
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 12:10:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I just want to pose this little exercise to you guys and truly see how good of debaters you actually are. If you believe in Atheism than give an argument for God, If you believe in God than give an argument for Atheism. READY GO
Ohh Lord How you love me, you change my heart and soul, renewing my mind into something I could never imagine, You make me strong when I am weak, you encourage me when I'm despaired, You stick by me when everyone deserts me, You are my Lord You are my God.

Charles: I'm not a Christian because I'm afraid of hell, I'm a Christian because I love Jesus.

Geolaureate: The Pope
He looks like a Sith lord, I don't trust him.

Charles0103: Just like my God, my faith won't change.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 12:22:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Argument for God:

4808 years ago, some dehydrated, nomadic, tribal people saw some stuff they couldn't explain, so they called it "God." Over the years, more and more stuff they couldn't explain got attributed to "God." And it became convincing enough that these people, whose cutting-edge technology was represented by the wheelbarrow, started worshiping "God."

Because of this, it's completely and absolutely true that a mystical force 4 millennia old made a Jewish zombie son to save the world and die for stuff you hadn't done yet. And you should worship him too.

Did I do good?
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 12:24:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 12:10:53 PM, Jarjar3000 wrote:
I just want to pose this little exercise to you guys and truly see how good of debaters you actually are. If you believe in Atheism than give an argument for God, If you believe in God than give an argument for Atheism. READY GO

Granted I don't think any of these arguments are right, but the most common ones tend to be:

Cosmological arguments: i.e. everything requires a creator and its variants (everything that has a beginning requires a creator, etc)

Complexity: What we see around us is too complex to have happened by chance

The ontological arguments: don't even know if I can give a good synopsis because it has never made sense to me... God is the greatest thing imaginable and God has to exist because he is greater if he exists than if he doesn't... something like that.

Universal law: basically the claim that there has to be a law giver for the universal laws (sometimes these are claimed to be universal moral laws, sometimes universal laws of physics, or sometimes both).

Of course none of these point to Christianity in the least, so what it really comes down to is:

The Bible says so.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 12:26:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 12:22:07 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Argument for God:

4808 years ago, some dehydrated, nomadic, tribal people saw some stuff they couldn't explain, so they called it "God." Over the years, more and more stuff they couldn't explain got attributed to "God." And it became convincing enough that these people, whose cutting-edge technology was represented by the wheelbarrow, started worshiping "God."

Because of this, it's completely and absolutely true that a mystical force 4 millennia old made a Jewish zombie son to save the world and die for stuff you hadn't done yet. And you should worship him too.

Did I do good?

Money!!!!
Sangers
Posts: 419
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 12:28:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 12:22:07 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Argument for God:

4808 years ago, some dehydrated, nomadic, tribal people saw some stuff they couldn't explain, so they called it "God." Over the years, more and more stuff they couldn't explain got attributed to "God." And it became convincing enough that these people, whose cutting-edge technology was represented by the wheelbarrow, started worshiping "God."

Because of this, it's completely and absolutely true that a mystical force 4 millennia old made a Jewish zombie son to save the world and die for stuff you hadn't done yet. And you should worship him too.

Did I do good?

Win ROFL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 1:59:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 12:22:07 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Argument for God:

4808 years ago, some dehydrated, nomadic, tribal people saw some stuff they couldn't explain, so they called it "God." Over the years, more and more stuff they couldn't explain got attributed to "God." And it became convincing enough that these people, whose cutting-edge technology was represented by the wheelbarrow, started worshiping "God."

Because of this, it's completely and absolutely true that a mystical force 4 millennia old made a Jewish zombie son to save the world and die for stuff you hadn't done yet. And you should worship him too.

Did I do good?

You have fun with your chronological snobbery.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 2:14:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I do this all the time anyway.

Only because my definition of god fits into an atheistic perspective.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 2:30:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Once upon a before time black Jesus and God was smoking some weed as they were wont to do and decided lets create some crazy shizzle. And they did. As this really did happen because weed exists, God exists.
(I'm not an atheist though, just agnostic)
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2011 2:31:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 2:30:07 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Once upon a before time black Jesus and God was smoking some weed as they were wont to do and decided lets create some crazy shizzle. And they did. As this really did happen because weed exists, God exists.
(I'm not an atheist though, just agnostic)

This is more believable than the actual story. Hahahaha!!!
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 9:24:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 2:30:07 PM, Thaddeus wrote:
Once upon a before time black Jesus and God was smoking some weed as they were wont to do and decided lets create some crazy shizzle. And they did. As this really did happen because weed exists, God exists.
(I'm not an atheist though, just agnostic)

This seems like a Rastafarian argument lol. Not saying that's a bad thing though :)
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
jmar8542
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 9:28:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now for a more serious post:

Argument for Atheism:
"I cannot understand the concept of any form of a god(s) within my limited human cognition, and I believe logic and science are the only means we may use to gain knowledge and insight. Therefore, I do not believe in anything outside of myself and the physical world, and I shall mock others for their contrary beliefs that seem 'silly' to me."

At least that's the way I've perceived it.
"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree, you can fvck off." - Richard Dawkins
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:30:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 9:28:18 AM, jmar8542 wrote:
Now for a more serious post:

Argument for Atheism:
"I cannot understand the concept of any form of a god(s) within my limited human cognition, and I believe logic and science are the only means we may use to gain knowledge and insight. Therefore, I do not believe in anything outside of myself and the physical world, and I shall mock others for their contrary beliefs that seem 'silly' to me."

At least that's the way I've perceived it.

So, you are saying that somehow, religious people are MORE cognitive than atheists? Hahahaha!!!!! So, theists are not bound by HUMAN cognition? Hahahaha!!!!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Bonehead post of the day.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:33:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 12:30:00 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 2/22/2011 9:28:18 AM, jmar8542 wrote:
Now for a more serious post:

Argument for Atheism:
"I cannot understand the concept of any form of a god(s) within my limited human cognition, and I believe logic and science are the only means we may use to gain knowledge and insight. Therefore, I do not believe in anything outside of myself and the physical world, and I shall mock others for their contrary beliefs that seem 'silly' to me."

At least that's the way I've perceived it.

So, you are saying that somehow, religious people are MORE cognitive than atheists? Hahahaha!!!!! So, theists are not bound by HUMAN cognition? Hahahaha!!!!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Bonehead post of the day.

lmao I wanted to comment on the Psychology of religion but I refrained myself.
gavin.ogden
Posts: 1,729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 12:35:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 12:33:16 PM, nonentity wrote:
At 2/22/2011 12:30:00 PM, gavin.ogden wrote:
At 2/22/2011 9:28:18 AM, jmar8542 wrote:
Now for a more serious post:

Argument for Atheism:
"I cannot understand the concept of any form of a god(s) within my limited human cognition, and I believe logic and science are the only means we may use to gain knowledge and insight. Therefore, I do not believe in anything outside of myself and the physical world, and I shall mock others for their contrary beliefs that seem 'silly' to me."

At least that's the way I've perceived it.

So, you are saying that somehow, religious people are MORE cognitive than atheists? Hahahaha!!!!! So, theists are not bound by HUMAN cognition? Hahahaha!!!!!! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. Bonehead post of the day.

lmao I wanted to comment on the Psychology of religion but I refrained myself.

That's because you are actually a good person, and I have no patience or will power to refrain from mocking people who mock reason. I guess we all have our own crosses to bear(snicker)
Suitecake
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 1:03:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
In seriousness

There are significant mysteries in the word that appear to be inexplicable by naturalistic methodologies: the fact of existence, the existence of consciousness, our perception of beauty and goodness, etc. Insofar as I desire a belief that explains these facts, and insofar as

I already believe in God and have structured my worldview upon that belief
AND/OR
Belief in God makes the most sense of the rest of the world, as far as I can tell

I therefore believe in God.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 1:36:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Humans have an inbred need to obtain reasons and explanations for everything. That's because the human species survives by wanting t figure things out and then doing so, so the need is genetic. God provides the default answer to questions that cannot be answered by reason or science. Therefore God makes people less anxious.

Without God, even more ridiculous ideologies are provided to answer all the unanswered questions.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 1:49:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 1:36:42 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Humans have an inbred need to obtain reasons and explanations for everything. That's because the human species survives by wanting t figure things out and then doing so, so the need is genetic. God provides the default answer to questions that cannot be answered by reason or science.

Really? Salvation, faith, original sin, faith, and Satan are needed to answer questions that science can't answer? Doubtful. How did we get here, where did the universe come from? Salvation. No. That's absurd.

Therefore God makes people less anxious.

But "God" is not a real explanation. Saying "Goddidit" doesn't detail how he did it, what his nature is, what the nature of reality is, or anything else that matters.

Without God, even more ridiculous ideologies are provided to answer all the unanswered questions.

Such as? What could be more ridiculous than positing God?
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:02:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think the best argument for a God has got to be the fine-tuning argument. A careful, evidential version of this (much like J.Kenyon laid out in his debate) can put the atheist in all sorts of trouble, and the majority of responses to this argument (particularly the multiverse or the anthropic principle) are not really convincing at all.

The best argument for atheism (IMO) would be the PoE - very hard to refute and everyone has an immediate grasp of its content.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 2:07:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:02:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I think the best argument for a God has got to be the fine-tuning argument. A careful, evidential version of this (much like J.Kenyon laid out in his debate) can put the atheist in all sorts of trouble, and the majority of responses to this argument (particularly the multiverse or the anthropic principle) are not really convincing at all.

The best argument for atheism (IMO) would be the PoE - very hard to refute and everyone has an immediate grasp of its content.


Except Zetsubou and Godsands :(
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:01:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As a result of a recent debate between Freeman and InquireTruth, I am not longer convinced that he PoE is the best evidential argument against God. The Argument from Divine Hiddeness seems at least as plausible and the PoE has some problems. It comes down to how God is defined: under a simple definition the theist is easily forced into contradiction but more advanced concepts of God can avoid the PoE almost entirely. Still, it is hard to deny that the terrible suffering in the world should not at least unsettling to a theist even if it is not unexplainable.

This thread was obviously going to be used to parody opposing viewpoints. I am still firmly committed to the belief expressed by RoyLatham that religion is purely the product of human psychology and has no rational basis, but I will not deny that it has been rigorously and impressively defended.
m93samman
Posts: 2,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:04:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/21/2011 12:22:07 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
Argument for God:

4808 years ago, some dehydrated, nomadic, tribal people saw some stuff they couldn't explain, so they called it "God." Over the years, more and more stuff they couldn't explain got attributed to "God." And it became convincing enough that these people, whose cutting-edge technology was represented by the wheelbarrow, started worshiping "God."

Because of this, it's completely and absolutely true that a mystical force 4 millennia old made a Jewish zombie son to save the world and die for stuff you hadn't done yet. And you should worship him too.

Did I do good?

L to the MAO
: At 4/15/2011 5:29:37 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
: Pascal's wager is for poosies.
:
: I mean that sincerly, because it's basically an argument from poooosie.
:
: I'm pretty sure that's like a fallacy.. Argument ad Pussium or something like that.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,927
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:34:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 2:02:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I think the best argument for a God has got to be the fine-tuning argument. A careful, evidential version of this (much like J.Kenyon laid out in his debate) can put the atheist in all sorts of trouble, and the majority of responses to this argument (particularly the multiverse or the anthropic principle) are not really convincing at all.

The best argument for atheism (IMO) would be the PoE - very hard to refute and everyone has an immediate grasp of its content.

I once quoted James Sennett because he summed up my (and it seems yours too) thoughts exactly: "I tell my philosophy of religion students, 'If you believe in God and the Argument from Evil doesn't keep you up at night, then you don't understand it. If you don't believe in God and the Argument from Design doesn't keep you up at night, then you don't understand it.'"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:42:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:01:53 PM, Grape wrote:
As a result of a recent debate between Freeman and InquireTruth, I am not longer convinced that he PoE is the best evidential argument against God. The Argument from Divine Hiddeness seems at least as plausible and the PoE has some problems. It comes down to how God is defined: under a simple definition the theist is easily forced into contradiction but more advanced concepts of God can avoid the PoE almost entirely. Still, it is hard to deny that the terrible suffering in the world should not at least unsettling to a theist even if it is not unexplainable.

This thread was obviously going to be used to parody opposing viewpoints. I am still firmly committed to the belief expressed by RoyLatham that religion is purely the product of human psychology and has no rational basis, but I will not deny that it has been rigorously and impressively defended.

Both the Argument from Evil and the Argument from Divine Hiddenous suck. However, some versions of PoE are effective.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:43:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/22/2011 5:34:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 2/22/2011 2:02:32 PM, unitedandy wrote:
I think the best argument for a God has got to be the fine-tuning argument. A careful, evidential version of this (much like J.Kenyon laid out in his debate) can put the atheist in all sorts of trouble, and the majority of responses to this argument (particularly the multiverse or the anthropic principle) are not really convincing at all.

The best argument for atheism (IMO) would be the PoE - very hard to refute and everyone has an immediate grasp of its content.

I once quoted James Sennett because he summed up my (and it seems yours too) thoughts exactly: "I tell my philosophy of religion students, 'If you believe in God and the Argument from Evil doesn't keep you up at night, then you don't understand it. If you don't believe in God and the Argument from Design doesn't keep you up at night, then you don't understand it.'"

And the Argument from Design sucks. It certainly does not keep me up at night.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2011 5:47:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I find it funny that these philosophical problems about God only arise when you feel that you need to cling onto a concept of God that allows these philosophical problems to even exist.

Even the argument from design is a useless argument, and anyone who bases their belief is too prideful to admit when they don't know.

The variable unaccounted for makes fools of even the wisest of men.

Somewhere down in the midst of all this, it is very likely that there is some form of intellectual dishonesty going on.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp