Chris630 Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 I've noticed a lot of people ask pointed questions about the character of the Christian god, and I'm led to wonder why. The arguments then just go to theology, which can be twisted and rationalized any which way someone wants it to. I would consider these debates over theological ideals kind of pointless in the face of the true debate that I think should be going on: Does god exist? If this premise can't be proven first, there is no need or reason to enter into detailed debates over the meaning of scripture, you may as well debate the meaning of chapter 3 of Ulysses. Unless you can establish divinity of a writing by proving it's god exists, and that he wrote it, what basis do you have to use it at all, and why should anyone debate it? I suppose its just partly for the heck of argument, and partly because the big question of god's existence probably has been beaten to death in the forum already, and Christians know they will generally lose, and so its sort of hard to find one to debate on the topic I suspect. What do you guys think? Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted July 4, 2009 Super Moderator Share Posted July 4, 2009 Hello and welcome, Chris. Christians aren't interested so much in establishing that a god exists - it must be THEIR god. While it is impossible to prove or disprove anything supernatural, such as a generic god or creator, many believe it is clearly possible to disprove the god represented in the Bible. The characteristics of that particular version of god are illogical and self contradictory, as are his purported actions. Besides, a lot of people on both sides of the debate just enjoy dabbling in philosophy. Many of us here are quite well versed in the Bible as former Bible college students, teachers, missionaries and preachers. We hate to let all that knowledge go to waste! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted July 4, 2009 Share Posted July 4, 2009 We've had the discussion about God's existence many times, and it comes up in other threads now and then too, so it has been talked about, but no resolution. Christians and religious people have this idea about both God and Jesus, resurrection, and everything else you can't prove that: absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. And with that, they think it's enough for them to believe. In other words, just because you can't prove that God exists, then in their mind, in some strange way, that proves that God exists. This website has been around now for quite some time. And it existed in other forms before it took on this one, so some questions tend to be asked again and again. Another thing is that I've read many of the arguments for and against God in the philosophical perspective, and my conclusion is that we can't make a conclusion about God's existence. I make this analogy: A man finds a black-painted box on the shore to the ocean. He doesn't know what is in it, and he can't open it. He lift it, and shake it, but no sound from inside. He shows his friend, who is with him, and they come to two different conclusions. One say there's a lot of gold in the box, and the reason why it doesn't rattle, is because they're packed in magical stuff, and the box is still light because of anti-gravity flux-capacitors behind the corners in the box. The other man say the box must be completely empty, even vacuum perhaps. Who is right? Those who easily are swayed by magical thinking might think the first one, but most likely we all think the second man is probably right. But the key is, "probably." Someone manages to open the box, and in there are some dry leaves, a stick stuck in one of the walls, dust, a bird feather... So it wasn't empty, but it contained something that was naturally explained. And this is my view of God. We can't know exactly what and how the world was caused, but most likely it has to be a natural explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neon Genesis Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 As others have pointed out, some people just enjoy discussing the bible and philosophy. Also, for many Christians, the bible is their proof that God exists, so it can be a good idea to familiarize oneself with at least the basics of Christian apologetics for when the topic inevitably comes up. Also, not everyone at ex-christian.net is an atheist. Many of the members here do believe in a deity and just don't believe in the Christian god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongo Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 ...the true debate that I think should be going on: Does god exist? edit... What do you guys think? The true debate that should be going on is whether beer is better than wine. (I'm a polyboozist) Knowing that I'll never get to live in a world where that question trumps a discussion of ghosts, I'll change my tack. The question of "What is the best question" is not so simple as picking the simplest question. People are complicated and anyone who thinks they are rational is probably an economist recalling outdated college dogma rather than observing people. People are both rational and emotional and dominance of one or the other for each person is different. So reducing religion to the question "Does god exist?" assumes that people will respond to a logical assessment of the question. That would be tantamount to the same magical thinking that religious people engage in when they assume that god exists. I would not suggest that "debate" constitutes the most important activity for the ex-religionist or the rationalist or (put label here) but since we're in the colosseum I'll conceed that "debate" is a legitemate constraint of the discussion. Um... discussion or debate? Fuck I'm getting confused. Moving on. So if there must be debate in this argument... why wouldn't the most essential question be, "Why do people believe?" How about, "Are religious people governed by their emotions?" How about "Is logic relevant in religion?" Obviously you feel that logic is important. My obversations of people in this and other forums and what I've read indicates that indoctrination and other brain training techniques are more important factors in determining belief. If I'm right then your question is less relevant. Now all of that may be a mis-match of the intention of you question which is not clear. In other words, the effectiveness of your essential question is determined by what you hope to achieve by debating that question. I'm not sure what you hope to achieve so I can't be certain that my question will better serve that purpose. You seem like a pretty rational person so what do you think? Mongo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Unless you can establish divinity of a writing by proving it's god exists, and that he wrote it, what basis do you have to use it at all, and why should anyone debate it? I tend to vacillate between taking on the theology and demanding evidence for the existence of god, depending on my mood and what else is happening on the forum, etc. I keep holding my breath for the Christians to notice the inconsistency of my theological positions. Since I don't believe the Bible or god, I will use any theological position that suits my argument of the moment. They have yet to notice. I suspect the reason is because they are so inconsistent themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts