The Dawkins Christian debate brings nothing new or meaningful to the table... for an xtianJuly 26 2010 at 9:32 AM
|Arthur Dent (no login)|
Response to The Dawkins Christian debate brings nothing new or meaningful to the table
anyone who has an AA degree from collage had to take philosophy 101 and read some of the best minds of man debating religion, but so far, God has neither been proven or disproven. I got it in that class when I argued with my teacher and was put down like a child that had brain damage, but he still gave me an A+. Why? Because he knew it didn't matter what either of us believed, it couldn't be proven yet so why take a chance on being reprimanded by giving me a lesser grade just because NEITHER of us could prove our point?
I suppose philosophy is all about the process of being able to defend a view, rather than the view itself, however that is not the case in life, truth or our aspirations. Its probably how you make your point, rather than what the point is in that class.
What I do see now that I didn't see at the time of my class is the reason that all debates look so ridiculous to me at this point. First I thought it was because I already knew neither side could be proven but it goes beyond that. The reason it looks ridiculous at this point is because of HOW LIMITED both sides are in explaining the AFFECT either belief has on LIFE as a human being.
I take it that you had a religious debate? dont forget religious truths are totally different to logical truths, you are not comparing equivalent systems at all. You are dealing at cross purposes.
Christians at best say it helps them but they don't explain how to satisfy an athiest anymore than an athiest can explain the AFFECT of their point of view on the human condition. If there is no purpose for either belief then they both fail as a reason for debate in my opinion and yes, its an opinion only.
The only reason that a person would be an atheist, that I can think of is if they cant see any reason for choosing an impossible creature to support an incredible morality under an absurd scenario for nothing but a self interested motivation. Whatever rules people accept for believing a god, would never be good enough to put your hard earned money on.
Debate without purpose is wasted time: Using terms like the flying spagehtti monster is so ridiculous that I can't believe it is used at all. Who on earth has established a purpose for such a creature so why would it find its way into the debate at all?
The Spaghetti monster was created for a very practical reason to deflect a certain specious logic that was threatening the education systems integrity at the hands of devious Intelligent design pseudo science school parents. The threat at the time was that it was seen that ID could be a foil to natural selection in science classes. Since the Spagetti monster was better science than ID, it became the defacto alternative if only one alternative was allowed. So it did battle against ID, rather than Natural selection.
Christians like O'Riley explain that Christianity helps him but he doesn't explain HOW which would bring at least a "REAL" reason to chose Christianity over Dawkins' meaningless debating. HOW does atheism help anyone? A Christian can become scientifically informed as much as an athiest so what does atheisim bring to the table except to SEGRAGATE scientific facts into "meaningless" fodder, even as Christians use segragated Bible verses to prove why they believe the way they do.
Apparently christianity helps adherants feel better because it has positive outcomes against ancient fears, atheism satisfies rationslists need for logical and rational outcomes, two different needs.
Where is the meaningful proof that this debate should even be considered?
Christians debating atheisim is really absurd from a FACT finding point of view because the Bible states that the carnal mind can NOT RECEIVE THE THINGS OF GOD. Now, it should be able to grasp scientific data so there is no reason for Christians to deny science, but I say stick to science that is absolutely PROVEN or why should you accept it anymore than an athiest accepts a "belief" about God. Scientific theories in other words should be dismissed as quickly as any "belief" is dismissed by an athiest.
Atheists dont give a stuff what the bible states, its a claim, not a proof, dismiss scientific theories if you like, but the world runs on them, religious theories change the world not a whit.
Here is what the outcome will be, mark my words
when BOTH Christians and athiests understand THEIR POSITION from a WHOLISTIC point of view, meaning how either side completely WORKS WITHIN THEIR OWN HUMANESS, there will be no debate because both sides will see eye to eye on the UNDERLYING REALITY of both true science and true religion.
Religious is not based on the need for truth, it is based solely upon guesswork and desire, there is no truth in religion
true science will prove that life is "self giving" on every level even though it appears that there is a survival of the fitest on the level of observation with the human mind. The human mind is the thing that is most out of touch in both atheisim and religion which is why it can't see the UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF LIFE yet.
The only purpose in life for anyone, is but what we give it, no more,no less, whether we know it or not.
science and religion when it is seen from the EYE of the SOUL, the MAN in Gods image and likeness, will perceive the HAND OF THE CREATOR in life and need neither 'belief' and yes, atheism is just a belief till it is absolutely proven that God does NOT exist: The only way that can be proven is to explain HOW LIFE came about without the 'need' for a creator.
But then the athiest still needs to satisfy himself with an explanation of why science put us together the way it did and leave us meaningless, without purpose, not even as good as the "lesser creation" that is self giving while man is self taking only:
on a scientific level an athiest will prove that man doesn't deserve to exist if he becomes completely honest in the proof of the meaningless of existence without a creator who has a greater purpose than the one that can be scientifically observed about man.
Sounds more like a religious proof - man doesnt deserve to exist. Atheist think it is a miracle that he does exist, and should take advantage of his luck
an athiest will be left to hold that bag with himself as the biggest fact of uselessness there is:
how will that help him be happy with his findings?
maybe that will show him why religion was "created" by humans to find more meaning in life than the one that ultimatly turns out to be true in an evolutionary world without God.
Its actually quite liberating to be free of the infantile lie of religion, maybe not for everyone though
and once he even begins to look deeper into the meaning of religion than mere belief, he will come to understand WHY God left us with his WORD and then life begins to make sense; There is a REDEMPTION of a fallen creation, while there is no redemption of a meaningless evolution that leaves us with the ultimate conclusion that man is the worst animal out there forever taking and leaving nothing worthwile behind in all LIFES findings.
my hope is that CHRISTIANS will also FIND THIS REDEMPTION so they can speak of it, witness of it, show how it works to be redeemed, transformed, and no longer destroying the earth; It is written God will destroy those who are destroying the earth, and he didn't add athiest or believer: To God there is no respector of persons. TO him his creation is good and he isn't going to let a belief in something stop him from his ultimate purpose for his creation which is redemption.
Believing in Jesus Christ just so you can FEEL better than an athiest is not going to prove that Christianity has any value, not even to Christians if they are honest about it.
Why would that make anyone feel better "than an atheist". I feel better than a christian, because deep down a christian must realise that they just made themselves feel better at the cost of fibbing to themselves, it must have a certain hollow feeling knowing the short cut taken in "opening ones heart to a fiction".
edited to enable HTML
|This message has been edited by Oscar50 on Jul 26, 2010 10:43 AM|