Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (9 Viewers)
- Thread starter Dinsdale
- Start date
I believe Jesus turned water into wine. It's not a fact, yes I know that.
Good boy. Keep insulting me. 98 percent if this forum is swarming with atheists, you should be getting plus reps or whatever you call it. That's a good boy looking for the approval of others.
Listen idiot, I know the difference between what I believe and what is a fact. You just want to insult me so you can get praise from your little geeky friends who think it's cool for 20 people to team up on me.
A fucking drone, that's what you are.
All of them ?
All of them write about this, among them people who were there, and all of them write the exact same story (not with the exact same words, of course).
Some of them went to Egypt after Alexander died, some went to Antiochia, some went to Greece and they all wrote the same thing about this accident from three different continents.
There were no cell phones, no msn +2300 years ago.
What is the probability ?
All of them write about this, among them people who were there, and all of them write the exact same story (not with the exact same words, of course).
Some of them went to Egypt after Alexander died, some went to Antiochia, some went to Greece and they all wrote the same thing about this accident from three different continents.
There were no cell phones, no msn +2300 years ago.
What is the probability ?
Hehehe, I said in one of the earlier posts you would track back and take back your OWN words when you are proven wrong. And what a suprise you did now (for several posts already, but this example is the most clear). This are your OWN words:
Well, now you are saying its not a fact, that you know that. You win the ultimate prize in backtracking, I dont have the keys to prize cabinet, ask Alen what you mean.
And the rest of your drivel, I am not an atheist, so save it. I kept saying to you, you can believe that, its fine. The only thing I have been arguing against is your IMMENSE display of fantastic stupidity (and not for others sakes, but because of your unbelieveable stupidity).
I must say, its incredible how you are a Grade A star in backtracking, and ofcourse spouting utter stupid nonsense. I mean, you twist basic meaning of words so insanely much to your convience its unbelieveable.
Seriously, go check the the definition of fact and history. It might suprise you, considering how you have used the words.
Well, now you are saying its not a fact, that you know that. You win the ultimate prize in backtracking, I dont have the keys to prize cabinet, ask Alen what you mean.
And the rest of your drivel, I am not an atheist, so save it. I kept saying to you, you can believe that, its fine. The only thing I have been arguing against is your IMMENSE display of fantastic stupidity (and not for others sakes, but because of your unbelieveable stupidity).
I must say, its incredible how you are a Grade A star in backtracking, and ofcourse spouting utter stupid nonsense. I mean, you twist basic meaning of words so insanely much to your convience its unbelieveable.
Seriously, go check the the definition of fact and history. It might suprise you, considering how you have used the words.
Get out.
ok.
You refuted nothing of what i said.
1) our body is not intelligently designed. I could think of at least 100 improvements, and i make no claims that i am god.
2) bible says that natural disasters are work of the devil or work of god to punish people for being sinners. Science says that it's mostly due to tectonic plates moving. Which claim is more accurate?
3) Philosophy deals with abstracts and has no necessary base in reality. Science does. It explains how, rather than ought. Historically, philosophers were ignorant of science and made many ridiculous claims about nature. They were wrong.
4) Catholic church spends million of dollars a year trying to prevent people from using contraception. many are dying because of that. Is pope not a believer?
Osama does what he does because he believes that he can justify his actions by proper reading of Koran. Evangelical Christians are killing doctors that perform abortions based on their doctrine. Saudi sharia courts punish raped women for causing the rape. All of these people are not-religious according to you? To do bad things you must be an atheist then no?
It's all to easy. You just excluded any possibility of any bad deed being committed by any religious person. All of them are actually infidels. Thats called true Scotsman fallacy, check it out.
5) if i lived on my own, alone in the world, i would not be able to kill/rape/pillage . I am a product of millions of years of evolution and i live in society made up of my kind (although i some people on this planet does not deserve to be in that group). It is in my interest to be good to others, because they will be good to me. If i kill, other will like consider me a threat and kill me (in our primitive time).
Richard Dawkins, selfish gene - another book for you to read. If you want it in terms of philosophy rather than science (although closely related through evolution of our species) search Golden Rule. As animals we had morals on the level of the animals. Once we started living in groups, our morals evolved.
6) you have to give an example of the African tribe that live outside the boundaries of Golden rule. I don't think there is any. If anything, their crimes are/were committed in the name of religion or any other unsubstantiated belief.
I would be less educated, i would be wearing less clothes, i would speak different language, but i would still be human.
7) i simply dont know what to say on your last point, except that you are proving my point. Morals evolved as the society evolved. I am an animal. I have survival instinct and hardwired desire to spread my genes. IF i was only that, i would live in the wild like any other animal and do just that. I am human, and in certain way i am more than this. It does not make us special, just different kind of animal. We learned how to co-operate for our own benefit and with the society becoming more complex, rules become more complex
and again, atrocities in the third world countries happen because a)ignorance, b) religion. We in the western world were doing the same things to each other (and still doing it to certain extent) , just that we are less ignorant than many in the third world countries. Our wealth allowed us to further our knowledge and to, to a certain extend, break away from the ignorance that used to hold us back. And for that we have science to thank for
You refuted nothing of what i said.
1) our body is not intelligently designed. I could think of at least 100 improvements, and i make no claims that i am god.
2) bible says that natural disasters are work of the devil or work of god to punish people for being sinners. Science says that it's mostly due to tectonic plates moving. Which claim is more accurate?
3) Philosophy deals with abstracts and has no necessary base in reality. Science does. It explains how, rather than ought. Historically, philosophers were ignorant of science and made many ridiculous claims about nature. They were wrong.
4) Catholic church spends million of dollars a year trying to prevent people from using contraception. many are dying because of that. Is pope not a believer?
Osama does what he does because he believes that he can justify his actions by proper reading of Koran. Evangelical Christians are killing doctors that perform abortions based on their doctrine. Saudi sharia courts punish raped women for causing the rape. All of these people are not-religious according to you? To do bad things you must be an atheist then no?
It's all to easy. You just excluded any possibility of any bad deed being committed by any religious person. All of them are actually infidels. Thats called true Scotsman fallacy, check it out.
5) if i lived on my own, alone in the world, i would not be able to kill/rape/pillage . I am a product of millions of years of evolution and i live in society made up of my kind (although i some people on this planet does not deserve to be in that group). It is in my interest to be good to others, because they will be good to me. If i kill, other will like consider me a threat and kill me (in our primitive time).
Richard Dawkins, selfish gene - another book for you to read. If you want it in terms of philosophy rather than science (although closely related through evolution of our species) search Golden Rule. As animals we had morals on the level of the animals. Once we started living in groups, our morals evolved.
6) you have to give an example of the African tribe that live outside the boundaries of Golden rule. I don't think there is any. If anything, their crimes are/were committed in the name of religion or any other unsubstantiated belief.
I would be less educated, i would be wearing less clothes, i would speak different language, but i would still be human.
7) i simply dont know what to say on your last point, except that you are proving my point
. Morals evolved as the society evolved. I am an animal. I have survival instinct and hardwired desire to spread my genes. IF i was only that, i would live in the wild like any other animal and do just that. I am human, and in certain way i am more than this. It does not make us special, just different kind of animal. We learned how to co-operate for our own benefit and with the society becoming more complex, rules become more complex and again, atrocities in the third world countries happen because a)ignorance, b) religion. We in the western world were doing the same things to each other (and still doing it to certain extent) , just that we are less ignorant than many in the third world countries. Our wealth allowed us to further our knowledge and to, to a certain extend, break away from the ignorance that used to hold us back. And for that we have science to thank for
3) Science itself depends on philosophies. Watch the debate at the start of the thread. Science itself cannot prove science. In the theory of relativity, it suggests that a particle must travel constantly at the speed of light, this is a theory that cannot be proven.
5) It would be of your interest to survive. You would kill to survive, you would have no morals when you lack knowledge of the world around you. That is my point.
I don't think you guys really get the whole point of this original argument. You can't prove there is no God just by attacking the Bible, Quran,Torah, or any of the religious books. You guys are saying that religion is incorrect and clearly has mistakes. Ok that is granted. Anything that will be touched by man (as in mankind) will be subject to error. People who believe in God believe that this life is a test that comes with hardships,mistakes, etc. It is your duty to sort through it out and find your right path.
Basically, none of you will ever be able to prove that God exists and none of you will be able to prove that God doesn't exist. There will always be two sides to this argument until some sort of scientific evidence can come out and prove that there is no God. It is all about your personal belief system. I don't see the harm in believing in God or not believing in him.
All you guys have turned this into is another I hate religion thread when it shouldn't be. It is a thread to discuss if a God exists not the particular stories of God from Christians, Jews, and Muslims because those religions have been run by human for ages now. It was more of a philosophical discussion rather than a religious one.
Basically, none of you will ever be able to prove that God exists and none of you will be able to prove that God doesn't exist. There will always be two sides to this argument until some sort of scientific evidence can come out and prove that there is no God. It is all about your personal belief system. I don't see the harm in believing in God or not believing in him.
All you guys have turned this into is another I hate religion thread when it shouldn't be. It is a thread to discuss if a God exists not the particular stories of God from Christians, Jews, and Muslims because those religions have been run by human for ages now. It was more of a philosophical discussion rather than a religious one.