Lets debate theology!

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Mystech, Feb 7, 2003.

  1. Mystech Adult Supervision Required Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,938
    The following is a breif comment and responce on an e-mail group to which I belong.

    Don't be too harsh, here. I didn't say I thought you were an idiot. From what you say here, you're a lot better off than most religious people that I tend to argue with, you don't register terribly high on the zealot-o-meter, and that's commendable. The main problem I have with your reasoning is the idea that something needs to be disproved in order for one not to believe in it. This is a fallacy; the only way to be sure of anything is to assume it's non-existent until proven otherwise. If we were to simply accept any idea which has not been expressly disproved, we would be working off of all sorts of dangerous flawed concepts, Unicorns and elves would fill our forests, giant sea monsters would clog the less traveled seaways, and planet X would be hurtling toward Earth on a collision course. The simple fact of the matter is that you simply can't get away with believing an idea if there is no credible evidence to back it up. Faith is the only real sin, because it is the conscious decision not to think.

    --- EMMA NORMAN <leimomi39@msn.com> wrote:
    > First, I do not surrender myself to ideals and laws set down by
    >others. I don't believe in relgion, I believe in God. Second, I, too,
    >only answer to myself and my husband and my child. I'm sure >you answer to the like. Futhermore, I know since I live the same
    >as you, I will not go wrong. I do not fear my God. My point is I'm >fine with you thinking I'm an idiot because I believe in God and
    >I'm fine with you not believing in a higher entity. You do not >have to prove to me that such an entity is nonexistant and I will
    >not claim to have evidence of my beliefs. I throughly enjoyed >your thoughts.
    > http://groups.msn.com/NoEvidenceofGod/_emailsettings.msnw
    >
    > MSN Groups
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Fluidity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    594
    It's one thing...

    The simple fact of the matter is that you simply can't get away with believing an idea if there is no credible evidence to back it up. Faith is the only real sin, because it is the conscious decision not to think.
    <HR>

    What is credible evidence?
    Even how we view scientific evidence is subjective.

    Case in point:

    Science has proven that in a medium where there is no life, in a sterilized environment, that life will suddenly appear. At first it is tiny, unorganized life forms of various mutations. Eventually, protazoa, virii, bacteria, all of these things will form, apparently from nowhere.

    We can all view this event two different ways:

    1) There has always been life, and there need not be any God to perpetuate life.

    2) God is the source of all life, and the evidence that God can and does create is in the very proof that life needs no other stimulus to begin, only a satisfactory medium.

    Newsflash: We find biophotons! Perhaps, these are the source of life.

    1) This is the natural mechanism that causes life to form.
    2) This is another brilliant mechanism God uses to create life.

    __________________________________________________-

    If faith is the conscious decision not to think, why am I constantly enjoying the scientific revalations we experience and how they express my creator's incredible taste for beauty?

    Now I have an atheist telling me what a 'sin' is.

    There's no end to the arrogance.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ConsequentAtheist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,579
    "God Did It" explains nothing. It is, at best, a placeholder awaiting a viable scientific theory, and at worst it's Latin for "Shut up!"

    If I point to a mountain and you pontificate, "God did it.", we both know nothing.
    If I point to a mountain and you theorize, "plate tektonics.", you've opened the door to understanding earthquakes and a myriad of other phenomena.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Turduckin A Fowl Trinity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    187
    Forgive me for not following the intent of the initial post. The title "Let's debate theology" indicates that theology is in some way involved in the discussion. Theology is the 'ology' of 'Theo'. Don't we have to believe in Theo before we begin to ologize Theo? It sounds like you really want to debate the existance of Theo, in which case there are a couple of threads already open on the subject.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Fluidity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    594
    Same...

    "God Did It" explains nothing. It is, at best, a placeholder awaiting a viable scientific theory, and at worst it's Latin for "Shut up!"

    If I point to a mountain and you pontificate, "God did it.", we both know nothing.
    If I point to a mountain and you theorize, "plate tektonics.", you've opened the door to understanding earthquakes and a myriad of other phenomena.
    <HR>
    <B>
    You don't want to know anything except what you can sense with your tiny human form, and your plethera of man-made machines.

    I hope there is a God. This is incomprehensible to you, illogical to you. You think it stupid of me to believe in the unseen and unknown.

    I dare you to express your terms of love to me. I dare you to face death at my side. I dare you to see life and love through my eyes, to need, to be needed as much as I need, as much as I am needed.

    I am not a man of giant stature,
    made of steel and stone.
    My heart would break on silver clouds,
    my eyes will weep at love.

    And if you cannot reach this shore,
    you are not alone.
    Not many men have known the heart,
    that dreams of things above.

    You are blind to what you cannot see; I am not.

    I would be glad to discuss plate tektonics and automotive engineering with you. Gravity, light, and energy do things of cause and effect. Life, is different. It is autonomous. It is spontaneous. Neither you or I can explain its true origin. You can theorize all you want.

    But the fact remains we do not know, and I call the indefinite source of life, God.
     
  9. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    But the fact remains we do not know, and I call the indefinite source of life, God.
    What will you call God it someone demonstrates the source of life?
     
  10. Fluidity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    594
    Persol, really

    You don't seem to understand. If a particle, or basic genome, or a wave of energy...whatever, is the source of life,..ie, what you call the source of life; the source of that energy..et al, is God.

    Yes, it is circular, like the Earth, the Moon, and the Stars.

    Why do you ask?
     
  11. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Well because I'd consider the source of life certain chemicals and enviroments. Basically you seem to be saying that the universe (in some way) is the source of life, and that god is the source of the universe. Otherwise you can define the universe as god, and you don't seem to be aiming along those lines.
     
  12. Fluidity Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    594
    Not really

    Let's just say the Universe could be the flesh of God, and our thoughts mingle with God's thoughts. That's a bit closer to my concept.
     

Share This Page