[quote]
How about you not tell me what to do or how to debate?
[/quote]

I'm not telling you what to do or how to debate. I'm nicely asking for you to ignore the thread if you feel the debate is useless. You aren't adding anything to the debate by constantly trying to discredit it.

[quote]
My thoughts [i]do raise an interesting point.[/I]
[/quote]

Not really. We have all heard it a million times from both sides. I'm trying to move the debate on, but you insist on this meaningless stagnation. If you honestly believe it will go no where, ignore the thread. Please.

[quote]
Just because I'm not replying in the fashion you'd like, doesn't mean that I haven't made a point. You're not the king of this thread, and you don't dictate the debate style.[/quote]

You aren't debating the topic. You are trying to tell us why no one should ever debate this topic, you are the one trying to be the "king" of the thread. If the existence of this thread is so threatening to you, I suggest that you ignore it until you are able and willing to contribute. The point here is to debate the topic at hand, and that is what I am trying to do.

[quote]
My ambition for participation is to point out not only how futile the debate [i]is in the first place, but also to question why it occurs at all.[/I][/quote]

1. I don't believe the debate is futile.
2. It's entertaining. Very.
3. I have learned a great deal by participating in these forms of debate.
4. It's a very important topic that nearly every human being has some form of interest in. THis only adds to its interest.
5. If you are so adamently opposed to the debate, I suggest you either ignore this thread or create a topic to debate the importance behind debating religious ideas. Otherwise, you are just disturbing this debate.
6. You have made your point in this thread several times now, you have ignored all my counter points. We heard you the first time, please progress with the debate, or stop.

[quote]
It seems not to be an attempt to gain any insight or to see how other people think, but merely to "win", to prove one's intellectual superiority, and, more importantly, to prove that one is more "intellectual" because one does not believe in a construct such as God. I think this is contemptuous to the extreme. This thread is little more than a carnival for pseudo-intellectuals.[/quote]

Thanks for the ad hominem arguments, not to mention the extreme straw man of what exactly is going on here. I'm sorry, but I don't agree at all with your opinion. None of these are my intentions.

[quote]
Naturally you'll say that, because I don't "just answer the question", I'm being "too good" for this debate topic. Not at all. I'm just questioning why it occurs. It's on subject. One can't always choose what one wants to debate.[/quote]

We have already gone through all of this in another topic.

Scroll down a bit. There you go.

[quote]
Perhaps my argument against debating this issue [i]is valid. Perhaps many philosopical issues are foolish to debate, and little more than intellectual curiosities with little real bearing. And perhaps not. But I'm not pretentious enough to claim that my ideas are completely original—undoubtedly they've been applied to similar situations before. So then, therefore, there must be some argument that shoots them down completely.[/I]
[/quote]

I think this is where the great irony lies. You are essentially attacking this thread because you feel it is meaningless to debate. But, you know this debate will continue. Whether it be here, or somewhere else, theological discussion is a main topic in all levels of philosophical discussion. People, since they continue to debate, obviously find some value you in. What are your reasons for telling us that such value does not exist?

And, don't worry, no one here, insofar as I have seen, has been "pretentious" enough to claim that their ideas and completely original. Whatever your goals are, they seem "futile" and "meaningless" to me. As, those who continue debate continue for their own personal reasons, and those who ignore the debate and detest it, will do so for their own. Are you trying to fit one subjective taste against another?

[QUOTE]
It seems like you are attacking rather than debating. [/quote]

I'm trying to debate the topic at hand and being attacked for it.

[QUOTE]
Mipadi's contributions to this thread have been thoughtful and insightful. His comments do contribute to this debate and raise valid issues.[/QUOTE]

We have already discussed these issues. He ignores my counterpoints and continues ad nauseam.

[QUOTE]Your attempt to proclaim logic and science as the paragon of life seems to be a personal vendetta against those who value other measures of quality and worth. [/QUOTE]

I never proclaimed any such thing. You also are operating on an ad hominem argument. I am challenging those "other measures of quality and worth" and trying to get meaningful responses. Refer back to my list of questions directed to faith believers.

[QUOTE]Even though you have managed to proclaim your allegiance to science, you have yet to offer any rationale that vaults it to the lofty position you claim it holds.[/QUOTE]

What thread are you reading? I never proclaimed my allegiance to science, not even close. Midpadi might have, but I came no where close. Nor, would I.

[QUOTE]
Yes, I too have a wealth of education in the sciences and logic, but find my personal compass guided by more than what can be proven.[/QUOTE]

That's cool, but for an entirely different debate.

[QUOTE] It's pompous to believe that science has the capacity to interpret the entirety of the universe and humankind.[/QUOTE]

I would have to agree. Science isn't even about that. I'm glad I never said anything like that.

[QUOTE]It is only one mechanism of understanding and interpretation of life that is as valid as believing in God is.[/QUOTE]

You would have to prove that.

[QUOTE]
Your absolute zeal for scientific rationalization will never serve as the authority/seal of approval of my personal observations. [/QUOTE]

You might need to reread the thread. You got me all wrong. Straw man, straw man.

[QUOTE]That belief makes a false assumption that someone other than me is the determinant of my reality and able to dictate how I exercise my freewill. To surrender that gift to science is the very thing you are criticizing religion for doing.[/QUOTE]

Straw man.

[QUOTE]
While you have an extensive vocabulary and value logic, remember, your opinion of life remains nothing more than a personal belief. The attempt you are making to force it to the point of absolute truth is an exercise in futility.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I was never attempting such a thing. Silly straw men.

{MY QUOTES WON'T WORK AND IT MAKES ME CRY}

Alright.

1) Don't cry, Nate.
2) Let's stop making this debate a personal back-and-forth thing and grow up to respect eachothers' opinions.
3) Michael, we all know that we can't prove either side and that you can't pit logic against faith. The point of the debate is to figure out why each side is representing their ideas a certain way. Why are those advocating logic the atheists and why are those advocating faith the theists, and where do those beliefs stem from? Why don't I have the same faith that a religious person does? Why didn't I believe in God all of my life? Analyzing the reasoning behind the beliefs presented here can lead to unity between the two sides and then there won't be a need for debate. Each side can't comprehend why the opposition thinks the way that they do, and the more debate occurs and the more new points and new thoughts are brought into the debate, the more each side can understand where the other is coming from. Until then, there is a need to debate. You say it's not going to get anywhere, but it has the potential to change peoples' minds and end the conflicts between atheists and theists. I changed a Roman Catholic girl (Tracy, D1SMANTLED, remember her?)'s mind on AIM just by presenting the reasons I was an atheist. The more I wrote, the more she understood, and she figured that the reasoning was correct. That's not saying that the debate is out to convert people; she just happened to agree. It will lead to further understanding and more knowledge and I don't think that's a bad effect at all. Like Nate, I, too, have learned a lot from these types of debate. If you find the first God thread and look at my posts there, they're quite different than my posts today, not only in the structure and composition, but also with the thought-processes. I had no understanding of the other side, or really, my side, whatsoever. All I knew was that I didn't believe in a deity, but I didn't really know why. Debates such as this have helped me formulate my ideas and figure out why I really think this way and I would like to share my knowledge with others, and see why they don't agree. There's a point.

I know I've asked this before in GodI and GodII and it doesn't pertain to the topic much but since someone brought it up, it's fair game to discuss, so bear with me...

Well, no one knew the world is spherical nor that earth revolves around the sun, however, the flat-earth theory and the geocentric theory were definitely challenged and later found credible. But why then, did Catholic Church condemned such challenge, such endeavor to further knowledge of the cosmos, as heresy?

I'm in no way attacking religion so no body gets upset with me, please. I'm merely questioning this kind of faith because it scares me... at times. And if it was not faith that ruined a man's life, then what else was it?

A simple query, nothing to argue here, I hope.

This is Catholicism we're talking about?

Without a specific passage in the bible, I really can't argue about it. Do you know the context it was in, or even what book it was in?



I read a great article about that a few weeks ago.

The Galileo Controversy
Why did the Catholic Church condemn Galileo?

Those two articles seem to put quite a spin on the Galileo issue. At one time, I was working on a film script about Galileo (he's of great personal interest to me), and the film centered around the Church's condemnation of his work, so that's where my research was centered. While the events described in those articles aren't wrong per se, they are highly spun to paint a good image of the church--which is what you'd expect from such a website.

Even if you give the articles some credit, it's a good example of why the Church really has no business messing around with science.

jesus said a rich man can get into heaven as easily as through the eye of a needle.

obviously you're supposed to give your money to the church.

you know, buy pardons, etc.

The first article states, and I quote, that "Copernicus did not
intend [for heliocentrism to be presented as a theory which explains
the movements of planets in simpler ways than geocentricism]" and
that the clergyman Osiander wrote such preface to... in a way
protect Copernicus. Question: Ptolemy's philosophy was considered as
gospel truth. Wouldn't Copernicus' heliocentric theory counter the
gospel truth, and therefore it would have made him a heretic in the eyes of
believers? Of course, you must agree with me that the fear of being
labled heretic was there, history is evidence enough. Anyway, don't
you think that Corpernicus did not correct Osiander's added preface
because he had a tangible fear of the religious consequences?

Also, though Aristotle refuted heliocentricism, he may be justly
excused. The the lack of scientific instruments in his time could
not support his scientific theory otherwise. The same cannot be said
in Galileo's time. How exactly did Galileo "mocked" the Pope? I'm
confused. If Galileo simply did not agree with Pope Urban VIII's
theory and refuted it in his work since he was presenting a quite
different theory, isn't discrediting other theories fair game? Why
is it mocking? If that's mocking, then isn't the Second
Commandment "mocking" of other religions? (A whole other debate)

No torture? Imprisonment for pursuing knowledge legally and
logically is not torture? You know what we call that nowdays? Not
exactly cruel, though very close to it, but unusual punishment comes
to mind.

I also find the closing statement amusing for its lack of simple logic.

Duh, of course we know that now because of the technology we have.
But for a man in that time period to find something so close to the
truth is rather amazing, don't you think?
I'll bother with the second article later. I'm still having a hard time
digesting what I just read.

I do wonder. Why are most intelligent people Aethiest?

If you think about it, every creation has a creator. Those who believe in God would say their creator is God. Though, an Aethiest could argue, "Who created God?"

I'm sorry Aethiests, you may not be able to find the answer to such questions in such a place as a forum. To find an answer like that requires research. A lot of it too.

If there was an exact, clear, obvious answer; If we knew God exists for sure, we would all believe in God already, wouldn't we?

I think this debate is going to be endless...

mayhaps we should stop argueing about the existance of god and instead assume god exists and argue about god, using science.

there's still plenty to argue.

like;

jesus cannot be the son of god.

god is a spiritual being. Mary, is a corpreal being.

in order for Mary to have a child, she must get sperm.

therefore; god must have sperm.

if god has sperm, and this sperm was able to combine with mary's egg and make jesus, then it must ahve been very close to human.

so close in fact, that god would have had to hae been human.

therefore; either jesus is not the son of god or god is human.

This topic is probably going to go no where.

Perhaps this topic should be closed before people start getting ticked at other people. (As if that hasn't happend already.)

I totally agree. In my opinion, religion is really just a way to make people happy and feel all warm and fuzzy inside even if it's not real. There are many moral lessons that can be learned from religion and it helps you get in touch with a spiritual, sensitive side of yourself. God does not exist. I'm sorry, kiddies, but he doesn't exist. Which is why I'm Atheist. I choose to be my own God because I refuse to be a follower and I choose to be logical rather than gullible. Basically, there are two ways to look at religion.

Believe it and be happy.
Don't believe it and don't be happy.

Of course there are exceptions to that rule, but that's what I see most commonly. Those who are very much in tune with their religion are usually very fulfilled and happy. Those who refuse to believe it, are normally not as happy with their lives as religious people.

There's no reason to debate religion and the existence of God. It's not going to get anyone anywhere.

1. A - T - H - E - I - S - T. Let's all learn to spell the terms of religious beliefs (or lack of) if we're going to accept them/debate against them!
2. Eddie, there's plenty of intelligent religious people that I've met.
3. The whole religious people being happier and non-religious people being unhappy thing is completely untrue. I'm perfectly happy with my life, and from what I've observed, happier than a lot of religious people I've met. And I know you said there are exceptions, but I've never seen that at all and I'm friends with a lot of both atheists and religious people.

Yes but from what I've seen, most are Atheist

There's also plenty of stupid atheists. Don't generalize like that.

I know I know, I speak of majority, but from what I've noticed, the majority of Atheist's are intelligent.

From personal experience, I would say that a minority of atheists are especially intelligent, and that a similar minority applies to those who hold theistic beliefs.
Even if this were true it would not help their argument any. So, it's a moot point.

I don't think that's accurate. I'm strongly atheist, but I am not unhappy. I do sometimes feel that my life has little meaning, but that's not due to a lack of religious faith—I think I'd feel the same way. I'll admit that I don't have any statistics on hand to back up this assertion, but I don't think that the number of unhappy atheists I personally know is significantly more or less than the number of unhappy theists I know.

In my opinion, it depends on how religion is valued for each individual. If I don't value religion highly at all, why would not having one make me unhappy? If you mean that having religion brings fulfillment spiritually and therefore happiness, that also depends on value. If I depend on familial fulfillment or romantic fulfillment to feed me spiritually, why would I need religion? As a person who has lived with religion and without, I'm rather content without at the moment... and not as unhappy as people of a faith would think.

Generally, people are unhappy because they make themselves unhappy. Religion has little to do with it unless you value it highly.

Let's make sure we're using the same definitions. What do you mean when you say "gospel truth?" There were no infallible statements made about the orbit of Earth and the Sun. Secondly, who does the article state that Osiander was trying to protect Copernicus from?

Copernicus did not correct Osiander because he died the year the book was published.



Read the article a little more closely:



Simplicio was the fool in Galileo's work. Using a fool to convey the Pope's message constitutes as mockery in my book.



Well, he was held under house arrest for disobeying an order.



Wait a second. Did Galileo actually prove anything conclusively? Galileo himself acknowledged that couldn't prove the motion of the earth.



The Virgin Birth was a miracle. She conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit. This maintains that Jesus is the son of God and that God is not human.

I, myself, am a Christian.

But sometimes, I ask myself, "Why do we believe in something/someone that we can't physically touch, taste, smell, see, or hear it/them?"
But like faith, we can't prove that there is no God, or if there is, for sure. However, some people with strong beliefs and faith KNOW that there is one, but hesitate to prove so.
Meh, I just think that if there is a God, Heaven, and Hell, I have nothing to lose if I'm a Christian. Plus, I have faith, which may sound a little cheesy.

but i said assume god exists, not science is false.

and science says there must be sperm.

egro; my argument holds.

I believe that some people are getting something very confused, especially in the beginning of this topic.

-Religion is not God, it is how man measures God.-

This debate is putting two flawed ideals up against each other, science and religion. There is no exact religion you can put up against science. Every religion is one man's inturpretation of God and the laws of faith. And you cannot put science against God because science is man's tool to measure symmetry and the world around him; as we know man is by nature flawed. We are discovering new things every day with science which means that it could not be seen as the all knowing truth in which we seek. The question is Why and neither religion nor science can explain that in a way that would satisfy us.



In an essay on religion and science:



The response to, "whether scientists pray":

-Einstein [link]

Hm.... I think he's considered an intellectual these days... But I may be wrong.

1) I'm using the term in the same context as what people, the ordinary mostly, would and have called it in those times. Prove me they'd call it otherwise. Men, leaders of the Church have believed the Bible taught, condoned, accepted the geocentric theory, therefore, what they say must be true. Gospel truth, biblical truth. What is the definition that you want me to perceive? You say there were no infallible statements, yet the Church said state a theory other than Ptolemy's and face house arrest or other forms on unsual punishment.
2) Let me rephrase since I clearly didn't research the first time. Osiander "protected" Copernicus from Protestants, or so the article says, but the chances that Copernicus would have endured the same fate as Galilleo had he not given up proving his theory is most obvious
3) Again, disagreement of theories that did not coincide with your own is mockery. Are you saying that the Church's condemnation of Galilleo's work arised from the Pope's wounded pride, even though it was the Church/Pope that tried to prevent Galilleo's publishing anything by calling it heresy?
Okay, James, you're now Galilleo (for the sake of argument imagine you're actually Galilleo and forget your strong belief in the Pope). You know your theory makes sense and you try to make others see it but the Church says you're committing heresy with your efforts . Though the sensible thing to do is NOT to further their anger, you can't help but believe that they are fools for not following your line of thought... after all... it makes so much sense.
4) A house arrest that also denied him of physicians for his hernia, denied him of having guests... He later found out during this house arrest that whatever he published have been banned. What a way to die.
What are your views about Giordano Bruno?
5) Actually, Galilleo took back a lot of things he claimed during the trials with the threat of torture and imprisonment. However, he did prove that the Venus orbits the Sun (in support of heliocentricism). I agree though, he believed in earth's motion but could not prove it conclusively. Hmm, but his belief in earth's motion while the Church didn't, enough genius for me.

Why must there be sperm? Do you not think that God could allow Mary to conceive Jesus without it? It was a miracle.



That's not why Galileo was put under house arrest.





See above quote.



No, it came from disobeying the order from Cardinal Bellarmine. Mocking the Pope by putting his words in the mouth of a fool only made it worse.



The problem is Galileo was a Catholic himself and believed strongly in the Pope too. Maybe Galileo could get frustrated that others did not follow heliocentrism, but I would think he could understand that some people would be averse to adopting a radical new theory immediately, especially one that Galileo could not conclusively prove himself.



I was unaware of the hernia deal. I googled it and read that they denied him a visit to Florence to see doctors about it, but I can't find anything more about the topic. Declining him a visit to see doctors in Florence and declining him medical attention completely are two different matters.

I think Bruno was a misguided man.