Does God exist? (William Lane Craig vs Peter Atkins debate) (29 Viewers)

[LowLife]

Real fans must hate, hate hate:
1. Amauri and co,
2. Inter,
3. Liverpool,
4. Ac, Roma, Fiorentina,
5. Fake black and white teams.
6. Faux fans

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[JuveJay]

ok Jay, one concept at a time please.
the argument started with sheik claiming that he only acts based on certitudes and facts, which is obviously not true, a quick look in his pocket will show pieces of paper they call money which are nothing but tokens of faith in an economic system. The shortmindedness is calling faith in a deity lunacy is what is being discussed.
As for the unwavering belief, please reread the exchange, i speak of reassurances, take for example the notorious Dawkins who handpicks vulnerable targets that are supposed to speak for their faith. Same is seen here, once someone is idnetified as potentially susceptible to the regurgitated atheism 101 postulations they go after him. Why? reassurance.

That might be true for some, but this is suppositive overall. In terms of belief I like the idea of it, the theory, I only have the knowledge that we don't know everything so there is always an element of doubt in the mind in regards to the workings of the universe. Not that I would tie this to any organised religion or its texts, but it's a possibility. Is that requiring reassurance? I don't think that my mind works like that, I'm content with dying and ceasing to exist, but I want answers for everything.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

That might be true for some, but this is suppositive overall. In terms of belief I like the idea of it, the theory, I only have the knowledge that we don't know everything so there is always an element of doubt in the mind in regards to the workings of the universe. Not that I would tie this to any organised religion or its texts, but it's a possibility. Is that requiring reassurance? I don't think that my mind works like that, I'm content with dying and ceasing to exist, but I want answers for everything.

then our doubt fuels whatever little faith you have, if you try to fight that doubt by clinging to a fake sense of certitude then you definitely need the reassurances.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

Idolizer !

Lol yea that's me lol

 

[AndreaCristiano]

then our doubt fuels whatever little faith you have, if you try to fight that doubt by clinging to a fake sense of certitude then you definitely need the reassurances.

Well spoken my friend

 

[JuveJay]

I am certain in my belief that organised religion is nonsense and man made. The element of doubt is in reference to another question, it comes from not knowing answers to something, like many things that cannot be explained in science or scientific terms. Religion gains strength from this, only belief survives when this doubt is removed, which is why it interests me.

If, in the unlikely scenario in the near future we discover a theoretical force that created all matter, then religion would consider this as a proof of god, I'd consider it a proof in science.

 

[JuveJay]

Well spoken my friend

Deneb, you must know why this is funny.

 

[GordoDeCentral]

I am certain in my belief that organised religion is nonsense and man made. The element of doubt is in reference to another question, it comes from not knowing answers to something, like many things that cannot be explained in science or scientific terms. Religion gains strength from this, only belief survives when this doubt is removed, which is why it interests me.

If, in the unlikely scenario in the near future we discover a theoretical force that created all matter, then religion would consider this as a proof of god, I'd consider it a proof in science.

i have not mentioned religion, my friend.

 

[JuveJay]

i have not mentioned religion, my friend.

Well I'm certainly not certain on belief, certainly. I should read more pages and drink less beer.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

I am certain in my belief that organised religion is nonsense and man made. The element of doubt is in reference to another question, it comes from not knowing answers to something, like many things that cannot be explained in science or scientific terms. Religion gains strength from this, only belief survives when this doubt is removed, which is why it interests me.

If, in the unlikely scenario in the near future we discover a theoretical force that created all matter, then religion would consider this as a proof of god, I'd consider it a proof in science.

Religion to the extent of traditions is man made but the essence and the words of prophets is not

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Religion to the extent of traditions is man made but the essence and the words of prophets is not

But isn't the source of the so-called 'words of the prophet' religious texts? If you didn't have those texts, would you ever hear of them from another source?

 

[GordoDeCentral]

Deneb, you must know why this is funny.

 

[king Ale]

This open-ended ambiguity is the great success and flaw of organised religion.

Not the success for sure. Religions' basic message is clear, remained unchanged throughout the time. This message, for encouraging what human does value, is the great success of organised religions.

 

[AndreaCristiano]

But isn't the source of the so-called 'words of the prophet' religious texts? If you didn't have those texts, would you ever hear of them from another source?

I'm sure and the religious texts are not of what I speak. I speak of the differences in the way we worship. As in the many versions of Christianity or Judiasm or Islam those are man made divisions that's what I was inferring to. To me the bible is inspired by God

 

[Nzoric]

Not the success for sure. Religions' basic message is clear, remained unchanged throughout the time. This message, for encouraging what human does value, is the great success of organised religions.

It's technically a success, but I don't consider it positive in any way that 1500 year old scriptures are dictating moral stances in this day and age.

 

[king Ale]

Not positive because what they basically value and encourage is wrong or because their followers still need them to decide what's wrong and what's right?

 

[Nzoric]

Not positive because what they basically value and encourage is wrong or because their followers still need them to decide what's wrong and what's right?

It's not necessarily wrong, but dictating values from something that is so old inevitably leads to a stagnation of the community - which can't be positive in any way. I find it hard to imagine that this isn't slowing down the progress of a society.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's not necessarily wrong, but dictating values from something that is so old inevitably leads to a stagnation of the community - which can't be positive in any way. I find it hard to imagine that this isn't slowing down the progress of a society.

It's just man attempt to maintain consistency in an everchanging world.

 

[Nzoric]

It's just man attempt to maintain consistency in an everchanging world.

Yes, but we can have consistency in other areas which are not that important. Lets have consistency about how we got to the bath room, and take up values and morale up for discussion every once in a while to see if we can improve.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Yes, but we can have consistency in other areas which are not that important. Lets have consistency about how we got to the bath room, and take up values and morale up for discussion every once in a while to see if we can improve.

I never said it was a successful attempt. Because of the fact that people are resorting to interpreting religious texts, it shows it they failed.