Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (88 Viewers)

[*aca*]

omg aca, what impossible timing. I can breathe easy, Batman is here

god had nothing to do with it.

i was bored and juventuz was bookmarked in my browser

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

i hate religion

I hear that.

 

[Lawnchair Bes]

i hear ya

 

[*aca*]

It's funny, isn't it? We're rehearsing the same debates. There are rarely any new arguments (verynine is creative, I like that), it's like we're practicing for a match or something.

The main problem with theology is that there are lot of people having a lot of time to redefine age old arguments, put them in the new clothes and demand a new, better and improved answer, otherwise they claim victory by default. (not here, but who follows up a bit on atheism/theism/creationism/evolution forums on the net will find this to be close to the truth).

Its like "this is God v2.1.1.3 and bugs from previous version have been fixed". You install it and run it and discover it's Windows ME all over again

 

[Osman]

Hahaha, wtf, aca put down his guitar for once, realising he is no Slash and is posting again...wait not in XT but frigging Juventuz.com???

From what I recall in XT, Martin should warn the others here, this guy coming into a religious debate, is like Godzilla coming to town, no "god fearing" debatist has a chance to leave here alive

 

[Martin]

The main problem with theology is that there are lot of people having a lot of time to redefine age old arguments, put them in the new clothes and demand a new, better and improved answer, otherwise they claim victory by default. (not here, but who follows up a bit on atheism/theism/creationism/evolution forums on the net will find this to be close to the truth).

Its like "this is God v2.1.1.3 and bugs from previous version have been fixed". You install it and run it and discover it's Windows ME all over again

Yeah, that is so true. "Don't take the bible literally, noone does that anymore. Here is an improved interpretation."

 

[*aca*]

i haven't posted here in ages, and it had to be religious discussion to bring me back

it's been ages

My signature is three years out of date.

 

[*aca*]

Hahaha, wtf, aca put down his guitar for once, realising he is no Slash and is posting again...wait not in XT but frigging Juventuz.com???

From what I recall in XT, Martin should warn the others here, this guy coming into a religious debate, is like Godzilla coming to town, no "god fearing" debatist has a chance to leave here alive

HAHAHAH

Hi Osman, long time no see

An i aint no Godzilla, it's a mythical creature, it doesnt exist. :nono:

I'm your friendly next door atheist that barbecues kittens in his free time

 

[Dinsdale]

This is probably inidicative that these athiest are not athiests because of the calm rationality but rather a sudden hate for religion. I respect athiests who are open to discussion and think objectively, as I do all people. I do not respect athiests who despise religion for whatever reason and therefore are extremely emotional when it comes to this topic.

That's what I meant. I also must add you're not making a very strong case for theism, unfortunately.

Well it seems to be very close to what we call "life". Every organism has this survival instinct, I don't know if anyone can explain why.

True. And from an evolutionary perspective, species that don't have an urge for survival and replication, will cease to exist very quickly. So the question is, can this natural urge start to exist without a creator? Do you happen to have read something about that?

Not really, because the implications of this are important. When a religious person tells you you have no morality because you don't believe in god, this is a pretty important question for the sake of your own identity.

But that's just a lame argument. No reason to get emotional because of that. And once again, being religious is not the same as believing god exists.

I'm thinking about the implications of your question. I think it is that you can always say that you live life the way god wanted it. And you can't prove it. So having the "will of god" to back you up is basically a psychological device to justify your actions to yourself and others.

I'm not sure if that's what you meant.

I meant that a metaphysical discussion about whether god exists is fully independent of religion and whatever religious arguments people come up with.

 

[*aca*]

No reason to get emotional because of that. And once again, being religious is not the same as believing god exists.



I meant that a metaphysical discussion about whether god exists is fully independent of religion and whatever religious arguments people come up with.

Sorry to butt in, but i would like you to explain how is this so?

I guess you would need to define what do you mean by "religious"

 

[Dinsdale]

Sorry to butt in, but i would like you to explain how is this so?

I guess you would need to define what do you mean by "religious"

Well if you are religious you can believe that there is an afterlife, that miracles happen, that god will punish us if we behave immorally etc...

If you just believe in god, you only believe god created the universe, and that's it. No mysical assumptions.

 

[Dominic]

Friedrich Nietzsche is dead.

So God is Nietzche?

 

[*aca*]

I'll reply to that, but i have to take care of my father (and considering that my better half is abroad again) & my mother role for tonight first

Have to make dinner (guess what? :evil: ) and do the dishes & all other interesting stuff....

 

[Martin]

True. And from an evolutionary perspective, species that don't have an urge for survival and replication, will cease to exist very quickly. So the question is, can this natural urge start to exist without a creator? Do you happen to have read something about that?

I think you just answered your own question. If there were organisms that didn't have the survival instinct, they failed to survived and replicate, therefore all current organisms have it. That's a simple and elegant explanation.

But that's just a lame argument. No reason to get emotional because of that.

People get excited about lame things like football. I mean what's more pointless than that?

And once again, being religious is not the same as believing god exists.

Are you saying there are people who don't believe in god and are religious? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dominic]

It does for clerics of yonder.

 

[Martin]

Health insurance wise, you mean?

 

[Dominic]

:money:

And power mainly

 

[Il Re]

i hate religion

i love religeon

 

[Dinsdale]

I think you just answered your own question. If there were organisms that didn't have the survival instinct, they failed to survived and replicate, therefore all current organisms have it. That's a simple and elegant explanation.

Not sure if I did. Evolution assumes lifeforms adapt to their environment by natural selection. Coincidentally, a mutation of a certain property is more succesful than the original version. e.g. butterflies with black pigment can obtain better camouphlage in environments where buildings have turned black because of air pollution. Pigment is obviously a physical property. But which (kind of) property mutated so that species with a natural urge for S&R started existing?

People get excited about lame things like football. I mean what's more pointless than that?

True.

Are you saying there are people who don't believe in god and are religious? That doesn't make any sense.

No, but it's possible to believe in god and to not be religious.

 

[Martin]

:money:

And power mainly

Well there weren't a lot of career options for a 40 year old monk in those days. Today you'd go to a career counselor and he'd give you a range of options.