Arguments for and against God's existence. I'd like the negative position to take on an equal burden of proof and provide arguments against God's existence, e.g. the problem of suffering, divine hiddenness, etc.
I am inclined to think that imagining an afterlife in one sort or another can be a great source of hope. On the other hand I think people who really do think that they are in essence immortal can't be trusted to hold life as sacred.
Is there a myth that is universal enough that everyone remains susceptible to it?
Something like: "Because of my superior understanding, I no longer need to be concerned about the problems that beset only those of inferior understanding"
Regardless of whether they fancy themselves religious or secular, people in general cetainly are inclined to point the finger at others as opposed to themselves. Each group considers the other to be more susceptible to profound folly, while (mistakenly imo) thinking themselves somehow immune.
Everyone prides themselves in their ability to criticize others, while the tradition of self-criticism and collective self-criticism are woefully neglected.
That's one of the things I like about Jesus. He was openly critical of the very tradition he was part of. I'm Christian in that sense at least.
I created this debate Thinking of the questions: What percentage of the teachings attributed to Christ must one accept to be a Christian? Can someone be somewhat Christian or is it an all or nothing deal?
1. The term god refers to a worshiped being2. A being that does not exist cannot be worshiped3. Gods exist as long as worship exists
--Old debate description is below--
God is a title/label for a being or group of beings that are unwaveringly trusted.
(I would say in many cases excessively trusted)
Only beings who communicate can be trusted.
A non existent being cannot communicate.
The initially posted debate description was edited as follows :
1. "metaphor" was changed to "Title/Label"
2. "most" was changed to "unwaveringly"
So, christians obviously look forward to their time in heaven.
But how do they know it's real?
It's not like they can ask their deceased relatives what its like up there.
And its not like god is always telling mortal men how great it is
If you find yourself constantly entertaining idiotic notions about the nature of god, then it may be helpful to identify as athiest, at least for awhile. If you should ever form a reasonably well thought out concept of god, then you'll see no need to deny, or state that you remain unconvinced of gods existence, you would instead busy yourself with trying to make further improvements to your understanding of god. If you constantly find yourself busy attacking what you see as other people's ideas of god, it's because this is more comfortable for you than admitting your understanding of god could be improved upon.
There are far too many biased and emotionally heated debates floating around so here is where those who wish to have an informative debate on the existence of God may discuss their vggarious evidences for and against.
Other points/rules -
-If you are presenting a point for a particular religion then note that at the begining, if not then it will be assumed to be an argument regarding God as a concept
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to explain evil if there exists a deity that is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient (see theism). Some philosophers have claimed that the existence of such a God and of evil are logically incompatible or unlikely. Attempts to resolve the question under these contexts have historically been one of the prime concerns of theodicy.
Some responses include the arguments that true free will cannot exist without the possibility of evil, that humans cannot understand God, that suffering is necessary for spiritual growth or evil is the consequence of a fallen world.
There are also many discussions of "evil" and associated "problems" in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics, and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics. But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.
Either try to come up with your own, post someone else's, or your favorite dictionary's, then upvote the best one(s) you see posted so far...
Definitions voted highest will be edited into this debate description.
1) X) a: The human habit of forming ideological alliances with one another, regarding issues commonly accepted as being of highest importance. b: An institution,organization, or group based on such alliances
The fact that one can quite literally have faith in anything is a testament to it's sheer unreliability. We can have faith in both the true and untrue. We can have faith in the possible and impossible. For things we know to be true we can empirically prove they are true, and thus there is no need to hold them on faith. Faith seems to be reserved for that which not only hasn't been proven but things which are inherently unprovable. If we hold good reason to believe a truth then there will be evidence to supports it's truth. Rather faith is a good indicator of things in which we specifically don't have good reason to believe.
I would go so far as to say that faith actually is reliable-- reliable in detecting BS in the sense that if something is believed on faith then it is most probably BS.