by snare&racket 122 Replies latest jw friends
No, I wouldn't use scripture in that way in a debate, Still. Scripture can be used to point out something that someone says about belief that is untrue. Or sometimes it can be used to show how something (in any of the papers or whatever that gets brought up) can tie in with something written about faith.
Peace,
tammy
May this thread continue and prosper !
reasoned, civilised, educated debate that sticks to its own rules, I have never seen that on JWN in recent years.
I would start by clarifying the debate as being between theist and atheists rather than between creationists and atheists since there are many theists who accept evolution (the Catholic Church now). I could argue that any theist is also a defacto creationist since, even if they believe God used evolution to guide the development of life, they still see God as the ultimate source of life and its "creation". It should also be clear that evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life but only the changes in organisms which were/are already living. Abiogenesis is the study of how life arose from nonlife.There could be a debate between Bible literalist and evolutionists but this would have a different emphasis.
It is simpler to just debate a universe with God as opposed to one without. The universe looks just as one would expect if it arose without intellegent guidence in its harsh, empty, uncaring, and cold nuetral randomness. For me, the universe makes more sense without God because of the harsh cruelty prevailent in the environments where all living things (we know of) struggle to survive everyday. In essence, there cannot be a loving, rational, intelligent being who would create such a cruel and chaotic universe.
A traditional christian concept of a biblical god is the hardest to defend due to the Bible's own contradictions, illogical structure, incoherent narrative, impossible timelines, and ever shifting personas of its god. So it would be easier to argue for a Diest god. I find the concept of a Diest god quite useless however, since it is unreachable and unconcerned with the goings on in its universe. In any case, God in any form remains invisible and silent in the realm of modern objective reality so the sciencific method cannot be used to directly study It. It is also not scientific to disprove God but rather evidence needs to be presented which proves a god exists. The Bible and its stories can be studied using the scientific method since so much of its narritive occurs in the natural world which should provide lots of physical evidence we can debate about.
In short, as long as religious concepts operate in a realm of faith in the unseen, unheard, and super natural it is out of the reach of science which is based upon evidence found in the natural, seeable, physical universe. This is why a debate about God is so difficult since we cannot agree upon the parameters of acceptable evidence. "Because an old book says so" is not acceptable evidence to those who live by the principles of empirical science.
Still thinking, if the theist team decide to offer a scripture for their turn, that is up to them. We would all look at, research and critically appraise (examine it for legitimacy) as we would any other.
tec what is wrong with using scripture, it is all you have my dear, stand up for it! Ps this is not a debate, it is a presentation and discussion of evidence available in 2012 to see what we can all learn from each other. Its not intended as an ego wrestling ring. I think you misunderstand this idea tec x
So have the theists agreed on this book? Shall we put it forward as the first read? Remember, if everyone puts in the effort to read it on the non theist side, it is only right that this is respectfully repaid when the non theists present something to read :) x
snare x
I agree and I'm all for it unless someone else has a different idea. I will read it again and contribute my thoughts to the discussion. No running away with my tail tucked!
I have no problem with that tec...as long as their is evidence to support the scripture. Otherwise, I might start quoting Dr seus..lol
I think you know what I mean. Well I hope you do.
As long as scripture isn't presented as...well the scripture says this...so that is the truth.
I mean, we are not trying to discuss the type of god, or the qualities of a god, Or if your faith is real. but the validity of the claim that god created everything. We are not discussing what is or isn't true about someones faith. Only if a creation theory is a viable alternative to the universe not being created. Since the idea that God created everything is a monotheistic idea (in this discussion)...it is obvious the bible will be used as a resource to support the claim. But should it be the only source of evidence?
I hope I have explained what I mean.
Perhaps Evolutionist v Creationist is more accurate. Many non-atheists also accept evolution.
It's difficult to label it isn't it NC? Many non atheists do say they accept evolution, but still believe it was ultimately all created. That is a problem that is almost pointless to discuss because NO ONE knows what happened before the big bang. And we come back to the bible and faith supporting god created it all to begin with.
So is this a debate discussing Creation v no god or creation (non evolution) v evolution?
Ha...three pages into the thread and I don't even know exactly what we are discussing. LOL
Are we all reading Collins book? Or discussing something else...
we could also discuss the influence of the catholic church on the cultivation and production of beer.
“It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.” – St. Columbanus, A.D. 612
if i'd believe, i'd be catholic for sure ;)
It's difficult to label it isn't it NC? Many non atheists do say they accept evolution, but still believe it was ultimately all created. That is a problem that is almost pointless to discuss because NO ONE knows what happened before the big bang. And we come back to the bible and faith supporting god created it all to begin with.
Well it is easy enough to narrow. What happened before the Big Bang is not covered by Evolution. Where the spark of life came from, is not covered by Evolution. So if the discussion was strictly limited to evolution without letting these two other questions muddy the conversation, it should be much easier.
I think that all participants should have to start by stating what they think of as evolution, and what they think of as creation, and stating the difference between Evolution, Big Bang and Abiogenesis. And then commit to keeping the discussion limited to Evolution only.
One frustrating thing for me, when discussing Evolution, is when Big Bang and Abiogenesis are thrown in as though the 3 concepts are interchangeable. They are not, and they are very different conversations.
