Debate

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 5:21 pm

Canada over Belarus, no question.

US and Russia, though... thats the game to watch!!!

Oh ya, and what I ment by "Beware Sailor Saturn" was that you should never get her started on everything religious.

@Thorin:

ThorinOakensfield · Post by **ThorinOakensfield** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 7:40 pm

@Gaxx: I give you an indulgence.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:11 pm

Originally posted by fable

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that should be Buck and company. I am but a saint in the pantheon.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Buck Satan's Nine Hell's org chart is unlikely to include 'saints'. Stains possibly, devils certainly. So you could be a Fabulous Devil?

.

All this talk on demographics got me researching and according to http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
There is considerable scope for an arguement that 20% of the world human population has no real religion. Which would put this segment (as a whole) second or third on most popular religion!

As both these figures and their application can be disputed in many ways (one of which is how contemporary they are) here are the figures from US Enlisted personnel 2001.
http://www.afpc.randolph.af.mil/demogra ... DENOM.html
Here: No Religious Preference - 55096 is second only to Roman Catholic - 65058 and Other specialist christian - 62654 and makes up around 20% of the entire cohort.

Coupled with a general reluctance to self report no religion (i.e. my dad was a methodist so I guess I am) and the recognised continuing decline in numbers of persons attending church or church activities. I think the Agnostics are a force worth considering if numbers are to be relied upon in this debate.

One small last point the Hindu adherants worship GODS (including male and female) not just one so need to be removed from any numerical arguement in support of the original question - Curdis !

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:36 pm

Originally posted by Curdis
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Buck Satan's Nine Hell's org chart is unlikely to include 'saints'. Stains possibly, devils certainly. So you could be a Fabulous Devil? .

No more than a obsequious minion, a la Xellos. We do what we can, you know.

Curdis · Post by **Curdis** » Thu Feb 21, 2002 11:25 pm

Originally posted by fable

No more than a obsequious minion, a la Xellos. We do what we can, you know.

Obsequious /-'si-/ a. excessively respectful.

Hmm, perhaps. Ccertainly incognisable at times, but this is Hell.

Still what with Hockey and the titular prominence

of esteemed personages its getting pretty damn hard to have a serious religious discussion in here

- Curdis !

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:12 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion

Originally posted by EMINEM

Oh, but we just have to argue over number of believers, since in this category alone atheism by comparison must hang its head in shame.

Indeed. But my point was simply that the majority thinks that Christianity is wrong. I pointed this out only because you started talking about all the millions of Christians - as if that supported your position.

But surely we both agree that it is not numbers that is important - after all everybody once thought that the earth was flat, that doesn't make it so.

Either there is a god as the bible describes him or there isn’t. Do you have any evidence or proof that there is?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 4:42 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion

Originally posted by Tom

Indeed. But my point was simply that the majority thinks that Christianity is wrong. I pointed this out only because you started talking about all the millions of Christians - as if that supported your position.

But surely we both agree that it is not numbers that is important - after all everybody once thought that the earth was flat, that doesn't make it so.

Either there is a god as the bible describes him or there isn’t. Do you have any evidence or proof that there is?

Ah, but an even greater majority think Islam is wrong, Buddhism is wrong, Hinduism is wrong, Judaism is wrong, Atheism is wrong. Why single out Christianity when among these religions it can boast the highest number of adherents?

But you're right about one thing - numbers don't mean much.

I have plenty of evidence and proof to support my side, but since we've had this discussion before, I think it would be fair if YOU go first this time and present YOUR evidence on why you think God does not exist. I will rebut accordingly. Agreed?

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 5:15 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion

Originally posted by EMINEM

I have plenty of evidence and proof to support my side, but since we've had this discussion before, I think it would be fair if YOU go first this time and present YOUR evidence on why you think God does not exist. I will rebut accordingly. Agreed?

He he

Normally you would think it is enough that there is no evidence for something. I don't believe in Santa because there is no evidence he exists.

But I will play along. But I suggest a compromise, you must also present your augments for Gods existence. Agreed?

Lets first clarify what we are discussing. Arguments should count for or against the existence of god as he/she/it is described in the bible. If not, (lets say the argument is for a creator with no other attributes than being a creator) then that should be specified before the argument.

My first argument against:
If you read the bible, especially the new testament, it is claimed that god is a moral agent. It is also claimed that he is very powerful.
Undeniably a lot of people are suffering in this world. some of them horribly.
Now I think that we can agree that god, according to the bible, is powerful enough to stop the suffering of these people.
A moral agent would stop the suffering of people if it was within his power.
Ergo. God is either not powerful enough to stop the suffering or he is not a moral agent.
Ergo. God can not be as he is described in the bible since the bible describes him as both powerful and morally good.

(I gotta go - have a good weekend.)

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:01 am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The good old discussion

Originally posted by Tom

My first argument against:
If you read the bible, especially the new testament, it is claimed that god is a moral agent. It is also claimed that he is very powerful.
Undeniably a lot of people are suffering in this world. some of them horribly.
Now I think that we can agree that god, according to the bible, is powerful enough to stop the suffering of these people.
A moral agent would stop the suffering of people if it was within his power.
Ergo. God is either not powerful enough to stop the suffering or he is not a moral agent.
Ergo. God can not be as he is described in the bible since the bible describes him as both powerful and morally good.

(I gotta go - have a good weekend.)

Before I respond, I think you oughta clarify what you mean by "suffering." I agree with you that many people in the world are suffering, but suffering in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

Sometimes it can even be a good thing.

For example, the last time I visited the dentist to have a root canal, I experienced "horrible" suffering (he didn't use enough freezing IMO). The pain was worth it, however, since the alternative was the permanent loss of a molar and the eventual recession of my gums. So in a way, one form of suffering prevented a greater form of suffering from taking place.

Have a great weekend! Don't forget to watch the hockey game and cheer on our team!

USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:20 am

... USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

(echo)

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:21 am

I have plenty of evidence and proof to support my side, but since we've had this discussion before, I think it would be fair if YOU go first this time and present YOUR evidence on why you think God does not exist. I will rebut accordingly. Agreed?

Now Now! I don't like this tone. Let's remember that debating isn't about picking holes in one another's arguments. If you are gonna be embarrased to present your opinions before someone else does, then don't cliam to support those opinions. Your argument will not become convincing because the other guy's is not.....that way you can make the weaker argument defeat the stronger and defeat your opponents with word games. And we all remember how much trouble Socrates got into for that....however, Socrates was on a mission from God, so is excused for having 'opponents' and wanting to 'defeat' them. We are not on any mission from God in here, and I think your primary concern should be for the true argument to defeat the untrue, which ever of those you hold.
If you are not going to be swayed by your co-debator's arguments even if they are undeniable, then he might as well not be here.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:29 am

now let me say what I was gonna say. I think it is impossible to decide wether God exists or not. I don't think that the most intelligent Physicist, Clergymen, Philosophers and Politicians would have been argueing about it for thousands of years if an agreement were reachable.

I don't think either of you are going to find out if God exists during the course of this debate, and as we know that there is no proof, you will just end up telling each other your opinions (which you already know) and then neither being able to prove or disprove any of them.

That's why I tried to spice up the discussion a bit by saying
IF God exists, why should we worship him. I believe that an undeniable argumet is reachable in that debate (and already has, though I won't tell you where it is until afterwards).

If you think that you are going to persuade each other into changing your beliefs please say so and I'll shut up.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:34 am

Frogus: If you by "God" mean the creator of the universe and mankind then i dont think there is any reason to obey it(in case it exists). We humans can make up our own minds about what is right or wrong.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:54 am

Originally posted by Dottie
We humans can make up our own minds about what is right or wrong.

Nonsense.

Objective moral values are derived from God. Take God away from the equation, and you're left with moral relativism, and the absence of any cogent and/or coherent sense of right or wrong.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:10 am

Originally posted by frogus

I think it is impossible to decide wether God exists or not.

I don't think either of you are going to find out if God exists during the course of this debate, and as we know that there is no proof, you will just end up telling each other your opinions (which you already know) and then neither being able to prove or disprove any of them.

On the contrary, I think it is totally possible to decide whether God exists based on the examination of the evidence available. I am a living example of someone who has done this.

If you you think there are NO proofs that God exists, why don't you posts your reasons why this is so instead of making such a grand assumption? I'll happily debate the point with you.

And no, I doubt neither Tom or I will be able to persuade each other on this issue. But that's not really the point of debating, is it? As long as we remain civil and learn something new in the course of our discussion, it would have all been worthwhile.

This isn't the first time the existence of God has been debated on this forum. It is, however, the first time a believer (me) has asked a non-believer to defend his non-belief. The proverbial shoe is on the other foot.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:19 am

Originally posted by EMINEM

Nonsense.

Objective moral values are derived from God. Take God away from the equation, and you're left with moral relativism, and the absence of any cogent and/or coherent sense of right or wrong.

There arent any objectiv moral, but as we humans develop over ages so will our subjectiv morals grew and communicate with each other and improve themselfs.

A potential creator have no more and no less rights then any human to try to change my moral.

Im not familiar with the term moral relativism so can you please explain that further.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:56 am

Originally posted by Dottie

There arent any objectiv moral, but as we humans develop over ages so will our subjectiv morals grew and communicate with each other and improve themselfs.

A potential creator have no more and no less rights then any human to try to change my moral.

Im not familiar with the term moral relativism so can you please explain that further.

Gladly!

Moral relativism is the view that moral standards are grounded only in social custom, or in the words of Protagoras: "Man is the measure of all things." If moral relativism is true, however, we could no longer say that customs of other societies (ie. slavery) morally inferior to our own. There is no consistency, no objective standard, by which morally relative rules and customs can be measured. Individually applied, what is right and good for one person (ie. speaking the truth) can be viewed as evil and perverse by another.

Fertile ground for anarchy, this.

BTW, do you have any evidence that human beings are growing stronger morally as time goes by? The 20th century is considered the bloodiest and most violent century in history. I shudder to think what the future of humanity looks like if the "moral development" of the past century in any indication of our progress.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:46 pm

If that is moral relativism then i agree with it. hovewer i dont think that everyones moral standards are only thier own concern. While some people might think that slavery is not a bad thing I think that it is and consider myself free to put a stop to any occurances of it.

But.

I cant claim my views of slavery to be supported by anything but my own mind, if i could that would stand in the way of any further development of a moral code.

This does not mean that a society could not agree on rules that everyone are obliged to follow.

btw, an anarchistic society is a socity without leaders, not a society without rules.

The creation of something that starts to get close to democracy in many national states is a very good sign. The view that all men and woman should have a right to decide how they are gouvern are definatly nothing that have been present in society forever. Infact the kings and queens of the past often claimed to have some kind of bond to the devine and pointed towards that bond whenever thier power was challanged, much like you are pointing towards the devine when claiming that your morality is the one and only.

Also capital punishment have been abolished in many nations, and there is things such as public schools aswell.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:49 pm

What makes you think slavery is a bad thing?

What if I believed that slavery is a good thing?

How would you refute this if YOUR belief is no better than my own? In the absence of objective moral values, I don't think you can. If man is the measure of all things, then neither my belief that slavery is good, nor your belief that slavery is bad, can be considered to be inferior or superior to one another. There is nothing, or no one, to judge between us. It's all good, or it's all bad, depending on how you look at it.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 2:00 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM
What makes you think slavery is a bad thing?

What if I believed that slavery is a good thing?

How would you refute this if YOUR belief is no better than my own? In the absence of objective moral values, I don't think you can. If man is the measure of all things, then neither my belief that slavery is good, nor your belief that slavery is bad, can be considered to be inferior or superior to one another. There is nothing, or no one, to judge between us. It's all good, or it's all bad, depending on how you look at it.

Yes, thats right. Neither of us can objectivly be considered right or wrong. What eventually is going to make a judgement between us are you, me and the involved slaves. And as far as i can se the verdict is at the moment falling the way i want it to.