OT - Über's Open Debate Thread

Also, what about those who have done twice as much good following a "non existant" god / supreme being?
Are they just wasting thier time..?
If thier can be only 1 god then there are a lot of people wasting thier efforts in the name of something that doesnt exist. Who decides which god is the real one?

 

All we do is decide what we believe, and which doctrine we will follow. We will find out at the end which God is the right one...

 

Welcome back mate.

What do you believe happens when we die and does it depend on how you've lived your life?

 

Stan is an intellectual colossus. I honestly mean that. His unique method of debunking various theories on this thread has been absolutely splendid. His style has an almost enchanting effect as I laugh at his wit whilst simultaneously marveling at his deconstruction of regurgitated claptrap.

COL, regarding this quote:

"Stan......I can't be so laid back about the meaning of everything and how we came about mate. I think us humans have always questioned everything and strived for knowledge. That's how we've found cures for diseases and made huge technological leaps. We'll always ask the most difficult questions and I believe that we'll find the answers one day............long after I'm gone unfortunately!"

You've just described exactly what Stan IS doing. You just don't like the conclusions he's come to man!

Willy, like former smokers being the most virulent anti-smoking campaigners out there, I, as a former ardent Christian, am among the most anti-religious people around. But I need not add anything as Christopher Hitchen's protege, SB, already has it nailed. Nevertheless, respect to you for putting up a steadfast defence of your beliefs in a courteous and gentlemanly manner.

Stanley, as you were son.

 

Just back from a school fireworks / barbecue event. I spent three hours flipping burgers..

Don't know what will happen with any degree of certainty, but I believe something will. What will heaven and the afterlife be really like? I will know one day, I guess.

As for how we live our lives, that is important, but I believe you are saved through faith, and good works alone are not enough.

 

The actual small world of this forum with its views on god ... Questions etc

Is exactly the same point that has run man throughout the its history

There within is the exact answer

Believers and non believers alike cannot prove anything ... There's the answer right is front of us all

A test ?

Maybe but it has driven man ever since and always will

Think about it as basics

Whatever your belief there is always an opposite or a mirror

Black White
Yes No
Truth Lie
Good Evil
QPR Chelsea

Why have opposites? if there was nothing in either of the ends of a spectrum

Space the final front ear

 

Mate, thats a big gamble isnt it. given the number of faiths & religions from christianity, Bhuddism to the Moonies etc.
I'd prob not bet on a horse with odds of 100/1. You are dedicating your life to a religion with potentially greater odds. personally that would turn me away.
Now coming from a Mixed background, a lot of my relatives are regular church goers and avidly preach the bible. Personally i went through the relious "phase' in my life and decided it wasnt for me.
I do believe & have seen how religion has helped people who are "lost" or "have no direction". Problem is a lot of those people would probably follow Swords if he started a cult religion. I do believe religion does a lot of good across the globe, for what ever reason but it also makes people act and behave in a very irrational and sometimes violent manner. That cant be right can it? That surely isnt what having a god and believing is about?
I'm with Col etc on this one. I firmly believe there is "Something" else out there. Whether its god, aliens, heaven , hell ior anything in between i have no idea. So whilst I'd never deny the existence of "another life form or being" there is no way I personally would devote my life to "IT".
That doesnt mean your wrong WWW and i resect and applaud you for putting your beliefs across so honestly and openly. Im sure there are others on this forum with the same beliefs who'd rather not share.

Good luck mate and no offence meant in of that, i just havent read anything that has changed my mind either on this post or anywhere else.
But..i could be wrong and itll be etternity surrounded by alcohol, drugs and hookers down below.....bring it on

 

I'd prob not bet on a horse with odds of 100/1.


maybe not
but every now and then one comes home

 

If you don't bet on something, the only thing you are sure of is that you won't come away with a win...

 

Or a loss!

 

Not so. If you don't play, and when you die you realise one faith was right, you are no better off than if you bet on the wrong horse. Effectively not choosing a faith IS betting on the wrong horse, because if you are right and there's nothing when we die, then I am no worse off than you. However, if I'm right and what I believe grants me eternity in heaven, what will happen to those who chose not to bet?

Sorry, I know that sounds a bit street-preacher, but it's worth considering. And for the record, that's not why I believe, it's just an element of why some people start to believe...

 

I don't know of your personal situation but I would say that with the vast majority of people there is no decision concerning what doctrine to follow; in fact, there are no choices whatsoever. Whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever, people tend to be raised from birth to follow a certain religion which makes the notion of decision making or choice a fallacy.

 

Ok, I do agree with this to a degree. The thing is, at some point as we grow up, we make our own choices. I know that's an easy thing to say from a Christian perspective and much harder in other religions (such as Islam, for example) but that doesn't make our choices any less valid. For me, the choice I made as an adult (I was around 19 at the time) was one I made on my own, and I haven't ever thought it was wrong.

Incidentally, and maybe somewhat ironically, it was at Loftus Road, during a series of Christian mission events in the summer of '84, stood on the artificial pitch....

 

What you and Queens are describing is something called Pascal's Wager - you are better off believing because there is no 'loss' if you are wrong. Its a neat bit of sophistry, but of course there is a drawback. It's not enough to 'believe' to get access to heaven (which is the only motivation) you have to have 'faith'. Heaven is not open to all - in every religion it is an exclusive club, for the 'saved' only. So you can believe and still not get in. Then you run the risk of devoting your life to following the strictures of your chosen God (and you have to be completely sincere in this, because as we all know if God exists it is omnipotent, poking its nose in everywhere, having a real interest in what you are eating and how you are having sex. I've never really understood why certain Gods have such a problem with ****ing, or like oppressing women, or don't want you to enjoy shellfish). So then the gamble becomes:
- does God exist?
- have I picked the right God?
- have I picked the right way to worship/demonstrate my faith to the right God? Remember, the faith is more imortant than doing/being good, as Willy has pointed out.
- am I prepared to devote my entire life to following, completely sincerely, this God's rules, which, if it doesn't exist (or if I've picked the wrong one, or the wrng way to worship the right one) will have been a total waste of the one life I've got?

It's a high stakes game, not a simple 'why not, I've got nothing to lose' decision. In many religions there is the concept of 'selling your soul to the devil'. There is less up frontness about 'selling your soul to God' which is what this deal is all about.

Finally, what exactly do you 'win' in this wholly venal, self interested deal? Who knows what kind of heaven would be provided by a God which has insisted on such a miserable, small minded life to pay the entrance fee?

I'm calling God's bluff on this one, and if the price is total obliteration of my consciousness, well thats what I'm expecting anyway.

 

Any chance of you non-believers putting up a reasoned, clear case FOR your chosen path, instead of simply trying to put up a gase against those who have faith?

This is the thing I have always noticed in these discussions. It's always up to the Christian to defend their beliefs against those whose sole purpose appears to be 'if you are right, what about this' or simply saying 'you are wrong'. I would be interested to see a reasoned, evidence based case for YOUR beliefs, instead of simply a statement that you reject mine. Otherwise this is simply starting to feel like a Christian-bashing session, and that's not really debate.

Off you go....

 

Thing is, non-believers don't have a 'set of beliefs', that's what makes them non-believers. Consequently, there isn't a stance to defend in the same way that a Christian has to defend the Flood or, to take a more specific case, why a Catholic has to defend - in a discussion such as this - the rite of transubstantiation. I don't know if your 'wrong or right' in your beliefs but I feel comfortable not having concoct a case that requires a defence for the way I live my life.

 

I certainly didn't mean my offering to be anything but a genuine, open question. I think you've handled yourself brilliantly Willy (sounds so wrong!) in this section of the debate. I am not a follower of any religion, but would love to be proved wrong. Nonetheless, I fully respect your position and beliefs, just as I did my father-in-law's, a devout catholic man whose faith guided him through his life and comforted him in his death.

Sorry, not a constructive post, but mainly to say peace willy, didn't mean any offence.

 

As has been pointed out earlier in this thread, atheism and anti-theism are not belief systems with places of worship, hierarchies, etc etc. We don't have a credo, an ideology, a catechism, a doctrine - we don't need one, we are free to think for ourselves. The a- and anti- in these words are the clue - without theists and theocracy, there is no need for the opposite. Beyond what I wrote in post 713, personally I have thought and read about God, religion, and faith (including reading bits of the Bible, Koran, a lot about Buddhism, Hinduism etc etc) and concluded that while the role of God and its impact on human history is huge, there is nothing behind the belief systems beyond ever more elaborate ways to explain the unknown and unknowable, which I personally do not need. I don't need a God to tell me what is right and wrong. My anti-theism has come from concluding that the impact of religion and belief, while occasionally providing glorious positives - for me architecture and art, some examples of positive self sacrifice, and the start point for philosophy -, has been overwhelmingly negative - death, destruction, ignorance and massive psychological damage to individuals.

If you really want to know more about atheist thinking, I suggest you read 'The Portable Atheist', an anthology of atheist thinking edited by Christopher Hitchens. It's not in Hitchens' aggressive, hyper style which I know offends many. It's also not a sacred text, or a mantra of beliefs/ rules for atheists - we don't have them. Most atheists are familiar with religious texts, but many fewer believers have knowledge of the counter arguments - possibly because religions have a thing about banning and burning books that provide them. Handy thing, blasphemy, if you want to maintain ignorance.

Another long post, apologies. In short, we don't talk about this **** unless in discussion with believers, and as Husky says, the onus is always on the believers.

By the way, I would be interested in your views on the apocalypse and my comments on Pascal's Wager. And don't take this personally Willy, you just happen to be the only believer with the balls to engage on this. It's also true to say that Christianity and Islam are the religions we have most practice in attacking (yep, it really is an attack) but rest assured I'm equally against Hinduism, Shinto, Tao and that favourite of 'intellectuals' Buddhism.

 

Trav, with the greatest respect to Stan, I'm not sure that taking the contrary view or insisting that you don't subscribe to the point of view of another is tantamount to 'debunking', and I personally would fight shy of describing the opinions of others as 'regurgitated claptrap'.

On the subject of religion, I think it no accident that faith, hope and love are always mentioned together, as all three can have quite different meanings from individual to individual. The reason why belief in a God is a faith is quite simply because many that have this understand too well that they cannot provide evidence to support it. The problem can come, of course, when such an individual seeks to press his faith upon others.

I still hold with my opinion that in a society with no God an individual human being is only accountable to other human beings if they choose to be, or if other human beings make it so. I did not read anything in the responses that disagreed with this, even though the responses were orientated in that way. I was twice accused of having a dark view of the world, which was a little unfair. It is not unreasonable, in my view, to use extremes to illustrate a point.

It may be reasonable to assume that most of us fall within a 'normal distribution' bell curve as far as 'normal' behaviour, attitudes and the like are concerned. And that would be fine. But what about those who's beliefs and actions sit outside of this normal distribution? Are they evil? Mentally ill? Victims of Indoctrination? Or just different than us? For those of us sitting comfortably well within the normal distribution, some behaviours right outside the bell curve will appear incomprehensible to us. How can we even begin to contemplate and empathise with such actions?

But I'm happy to let others come in and have the last word on this.

In order put out the accusations of Uber's darkness with gasoline, I am interested in how human nature can be so manipulated, quite often by a minority group of influential individuals, into conspiring and carrying out actions falling well beyond the margins of normal behaviour. For example, how so many Germans became enthusiastic Nazis, or how the Rwandan Hutus rose up to murder the Tutsis. Or what happened in the former Yugoslavia.

Of course, long-standing ill feeling, hatred and contempt play a part, and the influential groups find ways to unlock and use this. But in our comfortable existence here, we believe ourselves so far removed from this sort of world that many can't put themselves into the shoes of others.

For those amongst us that don't believe in the existence of God or an afterlife, how would we conduct ourselves if we were, God forbid (pun possibly intended) caught up in something like the examples above, or even those 'dark' ones I mentioned earlier in this thread? It is horribly hypothetical, of course, but if there is no final judgement at death, so you are only judged by other human beings, and those other human beings may sentence you to death if you don't conform to their ideology, what would you do?

We would all say, of course, that we would not join in. We will, of course, believe this when we say it. But would you accept that there were people (say) in 1920s or 1930s Germany that would have utterly refuted the suggestion that they would become the monsters they became? I'm not talking about the infamous leadership of Nazi Germany, but the 'ordinary' individuals that became (say) junior SS officers or concentration camp guards and the like. All contributed to the nightmare that unfolded.

I think it was John Maynard Keynes who said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Well, if the facts change such that your position in your home, in your society, in your world is threatened if you don't act in a certain way, do you act in that certain way? History has shown that many do.... and there is no reason to suggest that this won't be repeated somewhere, sometime in the future.

North Korea is another interesting example of a nation state in which the minority few at the top have successfully manipulated and controlled, through propagating and perpetuating a climate of fear, the majority of its peoples. Like the Stasi in post-War East Germany people are being controlled largely through fear of being 'dobbed in' by their friends, neighbours or even families. If you're not visibly 'on message' then you're considered to be 'off message'. It is dark. But these things happen.

There must be enough of the people to rise up against or at least resist such regimes. But they don't. Why is that? Is it because resisting or rising up risks death, and an insufficient number of opponents of such regimes are willing to risk their one solitary stab at life to bring about a change that will only benefit those that survive? Perhaps so.

 

What I don't understand is why you feel the need to 'attack' those with faith in something you believe is mere fantasy? I don't get why atheists feel so threatened by those who believe in God. It's not like anybody has ever attacked you with holy water and a crucifix (unless someone actually has, in which case I hope the burns on your skin healed well...

For the record, my faith is a personal decision, not decided for me by peers or parents. My choice was made at a stage in my life when I was certainly able to logically reason it out, and was made in the face of all those 'normal' things, like drinking, smoking, girls, cars etc. that were my alternative choice. Just shared for some context...