User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 150

  1. #101
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    why would we even have a thread about this? What's one person's oppinion going to have on another person? It's all internal, it's what YOU believe, and it's ridiculous to tell people that there is or isn't a god. Just keep it to yoursel, who cares who you tell..it doesn't mean anything at all.
    It's called a discussion. The title of the thread is "Debate the existence of God". Did something you read touch a nerve? As far as I can see nobody is trying to force their opinion.

  2. #102
    Furry Critter with Claws Kiddo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    OMNi
    Posts
    2,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning View Post
    Why have them?

    I don't get it... seems like a waste of time.

    It's unanswerable. Neither side wins, yet people are still interested?

    An issue of defending their believes (or there lack of)? Or something else?
    A person's spiritual beliefs are almost entirely determined by where they were born, what their family and friends were like, and the experiences they have had. So debating about the existence of God is not meaningless since it will tell you a lot about how an individual has lived their life and will continue to live their life, based upon their belief of whether or not a God exists; but it won't tell whether or not such a supreme being actually exists. Hence why a lot of people have interest in knowing in whether a person believes in God or not, even though it is fairly clear that there is no conclusive answer to whether or not one does.
    Quote Originally Posted by Silently Honest View Post
    OMNi: Wisdom at the cost of Sanity.

  3. #103
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Ok, I'm going to do my best to quell this horrible, horrible "OMG U CANT PROVE EITHER SIDE SO HOW CAN U MAKE A DECISION LOL?" argument.

    It's true that we cannot have absolute certainty about the nature/existence of God/gods and the origin of the universe. Fair enough. BUT:

    All things are inherently uncertain. That doesn't make them all equally probable.

    I'm going to say that again, because it's incredibly important. All things are inherently uncertain but that doesn't make them all equally probable.

    This is why it gets under my skin so fucking much when "Intelligent Design" people run around spouting off all this nonsense about how "all viewpoints should be equally respected" and blah blah. That's a nice ideal to aim for, but there does come a point when the educated world realizes that even though we can't completely disprove something, we can still act on the basis that it is probably not true when the available evidence indicates such.

    The biggest problem with faith and religion is its inability to respond to new changes in evidence. Science is always testing its own rules looking for flaws, and when it finds them it admits past mistakes and revises its overall worldview. It starts with no preconceived notions about the nature of the universe, and then it makes observations and starts to posit guesses as to why the phenomena it has observed occur. This is called being reasonable.

    Faith starts with a preconceived notion about the nature of the universe, and then, with an obvious ulterior motive, attempts to force its observations into fitting in line with its preconceived, arbitrarily chosen "facts" about how the universe really is. And where do these supposed facts come from? Why, a book which claims total accuracy based solely on the fact that it SAYS it's totally accurate. Jokes and jokes and jokes....

    Why do religious people insist that we must have ABSOLUTE TOTAL 100% CERTAINTY about something before we can make any meaningful decisions about it? The universe functions in probability clouds, not absolutes. We make decisions based on what the evidence seems to indicate is probably true; lacking 100% absolute certainty does not preclude us from making inferences about which belief systems probably are correct or incorrect.

    I can't stress enough how bloody sick I am of hearing "WELL SINCE U CANT COMPLETELY PROVE OR DISPROVE EITHER 100%, BOTH MUST BE EXACTLY 50% LIKELY TO BE CORRECT AND THEREFORE BOTH ARE EQUALLY INTELLECTUALLY VALID LOL"

    NO. WRONG. Arbitrarily devoting one's life to a belief system that science has repeatedly shown to be very probably (though not 100% definitely) wrong is NOT inherently as respectable as making decisions based on data provided by empirical evidence and shown repeatedly to be very probably correct.

    When you get right down to it, I'm not 100% certain that my house will not explode in the next 10 seconds. But past evidence indicates that it probably won't, so I'll continue to structure my behavior and belief system at least partially around the idea that my house probably will not explode in the next 10 seconds. Just because I can't be ABSOLUTELY SURE BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER doesn't grant any random, highly improbable, arbitrary, absurd ideas equal credibility.

    For that matter, why is faith admired/respected in so much of our society? Why do we dress up in such nobility and honor a process which consists essentially of systematically denying reality and empirical evidence?

    We don't respect Holocaust deniers for the "faith" they have that the Holocaust was made up, so why should we respect people for any other arbitrary decisions on vitally important issues based on zero evidence? Sorry, but "he's a man of great faith!" is not and never will be a compliment.

    WOW LOOK 10 SECONDS PASSED AND MY HOUSE IS STILL HERE. GOSH I'M SO LUCKY

  4. #104
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    I also think it's cute how the people who get upset when we try to discuss faith/religion objectively ("OMG WHY DO WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS???") are the same ones who tend to buy into such nonsense in the first place. You're free to bury yourself deeper in denial for as long as you want, but if you don't want to participate in a rational discussion about faith, at least do us a favor and stay out of ours.

  5. #105
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nightning
    It's unanswerable.
    The question 'does a god exist?' is easily answered with either a 'yes' or 'no.' It is done frequently.

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou
    There is no way to know.
    I agree--at least by what I suppose you mean by 'know.' This, however, does not preclude one from being right or wrong. Since a god either exists or does not, one answer to the question 'does a god exist?' is correct and the other is wrong. Even if nobody knows, would it not seem wise to try and figure out which is true (especially considering the consequences of erring)?

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou
    he debaters do not share any common assumptions, one of the minimum requirements for a productive debate.
    I endevour to refute this notion in every debate I have. It all depends on what you seek from a debate and what you consider constitutes a 'productive debate.'
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  6. #106
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The_Liquid_Laser View Post
    Why debate anything? Debates on any topic rarely convince people.
    Is the only purpose of debate to convince the other that you are right? Why can it not be to discover that all are wrong?
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  7. #107
    Senior Member LostInNerSpace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    1,027

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    This is why it gets under my skin so fucking much when "Intelligent Design" people run around spouting off all this nonsense about how "all viewpoints should be equally respected" and blah blah.
    It's about respecting their feeling not their thinking. Feeling is more important than thinking to some people. Did you notice what the person who got upset about this discussion has in her signature? "heart before intellect"--sacrilegious for most NTs.

    = This is sometimes me when people get too close with this kind of feeling.

    :rolli: = me other times.

    = people who whine about atheists or believers



    Incidentally, I'm agnostic not atheist. It was a feeler who pointed that out, and this particular feeler tend to make me .

  8. #108
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simulatedworld View Post
    I'm going to say that again, because it's incredibly important. All things are inherently uncertain but that doesn't make them all equally probable.
    By 'things' I suppose you mean ideas, propositions, theories, etc. rather than people, circles, colours, etc. If so, then things are not 'inherently uncertain.' People may be certain or uncertain about an idea, proposition, theory, or what have you, but these things are not inherently uncertain.

    Curious green dreams sleep furiously too, I bet.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  9. #109
    IRL is not real Cimarron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Posts
    3,424

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    why would we even have a thread about this? What's one person's oppinion going to have on another person? It's all internal, it's what YOU believe, and it's ridiculous to tell people that there is or isn't a god. Just keep it to yoursel, who cares who you tell..it doesn't mean anything at all.
    It sounds like you agree with the OP.
    You can't spell "justice" without ISTJ.

  10. #110
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LostInNerSpace View Post
    It's about respecting their feeling not their thinking. Feeling is more important than thinking to some people. Did you notice what the person who got upset about this discussion has in her signature? "heart before intellect"--sacrilegious for most NTs.

    = This is sometimes me when people get too close with this kind of feeling.

    :rolli: = me other times.

    = people who whine about atheists or believers



    Incidentally, I'm agnostic not atheist. It was a feeler who pointed that out, and this particular feeler tend to make me .
    Agnosticism and Atheism are not mutually exclusive; Agnosticism, in fact, is almost always accompanied by either Atheism or some form of theism.

    Agnosticism simply means uncertainty. Anyone, theist or not, who claims absolute knowledge of the universe (gnosticism), is being a goofball.

    I identify as an Agnostic Atheist--I'm not completely sure about the nature of the universe and never will be, but evidence indicates that the specific forms of God our society has dreamed up are all rather improbable, to say the least, so I remain an Atheist (it's my best guess) until shown enough evidence to make me guess otherwise.

    I'm just really irritated by the general idea that the fact that metaphysical philosophy operates entirely in the realm of guesswork necessitates that no meaningful metaphysical decisions can be made--it's constantly used as a cheap catch-all for justifying lots of ridiculous assertions. Less than 100% certainty does not automatically necessitate 50% certainty.

    And I do respect their feeling in that I will always defend their right to continue believing whatever it is that they want to. I would never attempt to impose my views on others by actively forcing people to stop studying religion, but I'd also never do anything to restrict my own right to criticize them publicly for it.

    I don't walk into churches and start metaphysical debates, though, and if someone in a live debate tells me that he doesn't want to discuss it anymore, I will always respect his right to abstain from the discussion, and leave him alone. That's why the internet is so great, though--it's impersonal enough that you can say pretty much whatever you want, and it allows anyone who wants to to get involved without forcing anyone who doesn't want to to stick around!

Similar Threads

  1. Does The Thought of God Not Existing Terrify You?
    By serenesam in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 71
    Last Post: 04-01-2014, 02:46 PM
  2. The irrefutable existence of God
    By Zangetshumody in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 157
    Last Post: 08-02-2013, 07:52 PM
  3. Hologram theory and the existence of fate and/or God
    By Valiant in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 06-21-2012, 08:05 AM
  4. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  5. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO