god thread, number 3 |
Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.
god thread, number 3 |
*disco infiltrator* |
![]()
Post
#1
|
Guest ![]() |
So, it seems that everything talked about in another thread leads to religion.
So here we are! Debate the existence of God and which one's right and stuff. I would post links to God threads 1 & 2, but you can't search for three-letter words. ![]() (2 got to 50 pages, think we can beat it?!?) Er, I'll start. I'm atheist. Prove me wrong. By prove, I mean state facts that have been backed up by solid evidence. I have yet to see that happen in all 70 combined pages of threads 1 & 2. |
|
|
![]() |
*mipadi* |
![]()
Post
#2
|
Guest ![]() |
I don't see the need to prove anyone wrong in this area. I'm comfortable with my own personal religious beliefs; the beliefs of others don't influence me unless I intend to discuss and learn from the beliefs of others. I'm not even certain why we bother having these discussions. I'm not concerned with another's personal beliefs, so long as his beliefs are not forced on me in such a way as to affect my own life, such as through governmental legislation.
Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
![]() in the reverb chamber. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 ![]() |
QUOTE(mipadi @ Feb 7 2006, 9:14 AM) Besides, how does one prove anything in this area? The logic of the atheist does not work against the faith of the believer, and vice-versa. Agreed. So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic. I pose these questions to a faith believer: 1. What is faith, exactly? 2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih? 3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith? 4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith? 5. Of what value is faith? 6. Of what use is faith? 7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations? |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
![]() in the reverb chamber. ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Staff Alumni Posts: 4,022 Joined: Nov 2005 Member No: 300,308 ![]() |
QUOTE(Acid Bath Slayer @ Feb 7 2006, 9:50 AM) So, in this case, it would be most important to first examine the epistemological nature of both faith, and logic. I pose these questions to a faith believer: 1. What is faith, exactly? 2. How can we know that we are operating under fatih? 3. How do we gain accurate knowledge from mechanisms of faith? 4. What exactly are the mechanisms of faith? 5. Of what value is faith? 6. Of what use is faith? 7. Imagine that we were to put several individuals in a room to observe an event and attempt to explain said event with two different tools. In the first test we would give them the tools of logic science as a means to explain the observed event. Several of the individuals came out with different explanations. As logic is a tightly defined process, we can study each participant's methodology to determine who went wrong and where, and who has created a cogent, cohesive, and deductive explanation. We can explain why different people came about different explanations and show them what needs to be done in order to become more accurate in their observations, and explanations. Now, moving into the second test, we would give that participants the supposed tools of faith as a means to explain the observed events. Coming out of the experiment, each participant has came to a different conclusion and explanation. How do we determine who is right and who is wrong in their explanations? Are any believers interested in answering my questions? Or, are their some believers out their who believe that belief in God is more rational than non-belief? Because, I think we may have been creating a false dichotomy with the Reason Vs. Faith kind of idea. I'm not sure that all believers adhere to the idea of faith, nor do all nonbelievers deny faith and only embrace reason. |
|
|
![]() ![]() |