Errr... you can't blaspheme against Buddha because Siddhartha Gautama never claimed to be a God? In fact, he stated specifically that grasping onto the concept of a All-Powerful-Being or afterlife is a form of irrational attachment, antithetical to his teachings. He said there were no rules you HAD to obey either, as the rules themselves would be irrational attachment. And actually, he never said that his students HAD to listen to him or that he had any monopoly on the "truth", since the concept of "truth" itself is a form of irrational attachment which he has forsaken. All hail Buddha, one of the earliest nihilists and agnostics! Being an agnostic and passionate anti-christian, I think this debate should be quite delightful! I too, can throw considerable doubt on Christianity simply by citing a short list of examples from the Bible and fundamental Christian tenets (without ever mentioning evolution or science). I believe common sense alone should be sufficient to crush most of these self-righteous zealots in a public debate. (wait, does that make me one too? )
^The split into different sects. The East Asian variety incorporated their local dieties into Buddhism while the remaining sects stayed away from worshiping higher beings.
Both of you are right, Sishir, Invisible Fan. I was just pointing out that this Cameron dude has no friggin clue what he's talking about... "Blaspheme against Buddha and Gandhi"?... how the heck do you blaspheme Gandhi? The dude is sooo gonna get schooled.
The logical response to many of the arguments along the lines of the banana argument above is the Anthropic Principal.
I don't think Invisible Fan's comment conflicts with my comment. I agree but after being wrong about the Rox beating the Jazz or the Mavericks the Warriors caution might be warranted..
Nobody has brought this back up so I will. As expected, fairly superficial on Nightline. They compressed it to this: Comfort - God exists because we exist Atheist - that is dumb Crowd - (insert person) is wrong Bashir - nothing was gained except maybe getting people to talk about their differences.
Well I was hoping they would bring out something new instead of what they do on their show every week...but I guess they assume this audience hasn't seen their show. All they did was change their example. On their show they like to use a building but here they used a painting (complete with a printout on posterboard of the Mona Lisa). I did think it was funny that Nightline showed them studying and taking/reading notes before and during the show...they do this argument nonstop...why do they have to study? Nightline also had them repeatedly say that scientifically proving God was so easy and simple that even a child could understand it.
The Anthropic Principal That would make some compelling TV wouldn't it? We always have to remember that television and every other popular medium is designed to sell soap.
I would like to challenge all the atheists on the bbs to a debate on the existence of God. We will schedule it for a time after we are all dead and have a better perspective. I like Ray Comfort alot. At least the one I knew back in the day. I believe he has alot of compassion for non Christians to know Christ. He also understands how very important it is to witness to the conscience and for there to be an actual spiritual conversion (birth or whatever) that God accomplishes through grace- that is obvious in his Hell's Best Kept Secret and Way of the Master sermons. In my opinion he is one of the growingly few preachers that really understands the moral nature of God as revealed in scriptures, His moral character and what that has to do with God's moral law and faith and salvation. Most ministers today don't really study the preaching of a Bunyan, Wesley, Newton, Whitefield, Luther, Calvin, Finney, Moody, Spurgeon, Booth and many other historically effective preachers. Though they differed on many issues, few differed in their understanding of salvation, grace, faith and God's character. Many churches are abandoning spiritual conversion (Jesus called it a new birth, Paul called it a new creation- but they were talking about God's power to save and change the human heart). It's too bad- reminds me of scriptures that talk about falling away and perilous times.
I completely forgot about it and was watching the end of the Warriors-Jazz game. Anyone know if its available online?
The Greeks came to believe that God(s) exist because we created them. So you could argue this is a chicken and egg question. Further it is a circular argument. We exist because God exists.. If we are going to take that statement seriously then would God exist if we didn't? The problem is that such follow up questions though cannot be answered if the answer is "We exists because God exist." That is like the answer to the question, "Does a tree falling in the woods make a sound." If the answer is "yes, because we hear it." what if there is no one to hear it? In the end then God is tied to humanity and is relative to humanity since the proof of God is us.
Yep, Personally God doesn't even try to prove He exists... the only thing I can think of in the Bible is that it says the creation should be enough proof... hardly something to argue 'scientifically' over... I don't think I could prove to someone that God exists, but I do believe if you come in contact spiritually with Jesus you will believe exactly that. The difference though with circular reasoning is that it is not circular reasoning to question origins. If I wonder what life is and where life came from and start to entertain origins it is very reasonable to include an outside cause beyond chance and time.... And it isn't difficult or reasonable to speculate that the immensity and complexity of life and all known existence if caused would require more of a cause than we can provide. That is logical isn't it and whether you use the word 'god' or big unkown cause type person, you have to admit that whatever caused life itself whether by chance and time or by design and order - it was pretty big thing.
Yes -a tree falling in the woods causes sound waves to travel... just like oranges are orange even in the dark, you can be color blind but wavelengths of light will reflect that exact wavelength on surfaces that reflect it. The real question should be if a tree falls in the woods does God hear it.
Interesting question. I would think questions about God would come as natural as existing. Just like some Christians' belief that morality is proof of a God. If only we had proof of someone crossing the lines of life and death. That would answer some questions.
To be fair, I was mostly joking. I am sure they were preparing for the debate and not for their opening argument...I was just doing that because Nightline kept it so superficial as to only show that one argument. So they spent the same amount of time showing them study as showing them present their case. Bad television. rhester - you already said you like Comfort...I don't really know why you needed to respond to my post about the Nightline show to continue expressing your admiration for him (I didn't make any challenge).
Its not circular to question where things came from but if your answer is totally dependent on that we are here then that is circular. Question: Who created you? Answer: God. Question: How do you know God exist? Answer: Because he created me and I am here. As circular as a donut.
