Topic awaiting preservation: Peanut Gallery for "Does God Exist?" II (Page 1 of 3)

Other peanut gallery was gettin pretty darn long. Please use this one to continue the discussion. Does everyone have enought peanuts?

And don't forget to say howdy to a new poster who stopped in the other peanut gallery thread to say hi: SheRockz. ~waves at SheRockz~

All righty then, next up in the formal debate is InSiDeR. Looking forward to your post, buddy! Don't be intimidated by all that has been posted so far. Just stick with what you know and believe (or don't believe) and you'll be fine!

And if you folks have any deep, tricky questions for the debators, post them here. I'll be grabbing some questions from this thread to present in the formal debate. The time for the first question is almost here!

Cell Number: 494

A hearty welcome to SheRockz!

Here's something that WS's last post in the previous PG thread brought to mind: Strong faith in a weak bridge will get you wet, but even weak faith in a strong bridge will keep you dry. I believe that pretty much sums up what WS was trying to say.

Also, concerning Bugs' post: while I personally agree with most of what Bugs said, I have to disagree with the part about the conscience. Bugs writes:

quote:

---

How many times have we seen it here in our very own Asylum? "That post was uncalled for!"... "I just had to edit out what was just posted because it was filled with racist hatred."... "Ripping a designer's graphics is wrong! The day it happens to you, you just might understand why that's the case."

I could go on and on, and this was just online comments I've mentioned, let alone what we all hear in our daily lives. What is very interesting about all these comments is that they all presuppose a certain standard of behavior that is expected we all should have some knowledge and/or adherence to.

---

He, of course, goes on to counter the inevitable "diverse cultures" objection:

quote:

---

You may be objecting to the idea of a common standard of behavior for mankind on the basis that there are so many different cultures and standards of morality. But this simply is not the case. The world's civilizations, vis-?vis morality, have far more in common than they differ. We're talking Egyptian, Babylonian, Hindu, Chinese, Greek, and Roman to name some of the biggies. C. S. Lewis provides evidence for this in his appendix to "The Abolition of Man".

---

(OK, that's all the quoting I'm going to do.) This may be petty, but I take issue with Bugs' examples in the first paragraph up there, especially the one about ripping. The idea of intellectual property rights is largely a Western invention, and didn't really exist in Asia until they were introduced by Western invaders. In Korea, morality was traditionally based on Confucianism, and basically consisted of knowing your place in the social order and not straying from it. The idea of personal property (and thus, the idea of theft) is also limited culturally. When I was in Africa, I was warned not to leave my shoes outside of my tent at night, because passers-by would think nothing of just walking off with something that was left lying around. This sort of thing can be seen in any cultural that does not have a strong sense of personal property--most Western civilizations referred (and still refer) to these sort of cultures as "primitive."

These are just two examples of this fact--morality is cultural. In fact, the whole idea that morality appeals to some inner human nature was an argument used by imperialists to justify their conquest of "lesser" lands and peoples. After all, they did not possess this supposedly inner nature and therefore needed to be "civilized." That is why I find this argument extremely dangerous.

I know we're not using the Bible as a source, and we're not talking specifically about the Christian God, but this is the Peanut Gallery, right? So I'm going to look in the Bible to see where the Judeo-Christian morality is based. Humor me for a moment, if you will. (All quotations are taken from the New International Version of the Bible.)

Proverbs 22:6 - Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.

Exodus 18:20 (spoken to Moses by his father-in-law, concerning his guiding the Israelites) - Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform.

Deuteronomy 11:19 (spoken to the Israelites by Moses, conveying his last words of wisdom before he died) - Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up.

These are just a few of the many verses that I could have quoted. It is clear that the Bible writers believed the moral code needed to taught in order to be acquired; it was not something that came naturally to people. In fact, the Bible says that humans are, by nature, wicked! (see Jeremiah 17:9). If anything, the universal human nature (without the controlling influence of social mores, etc.) is the opposite of what Bugs stated. Yes, we may be disgusted by that which we perceive as fundamentally wrong, but that is not because it touches our basic nature--it is because it goes against everything that we have been taught. This is why different things are taboo for different cultures (despite what Bugs said about all cultures being fundamentally the same).

Now, you may be thinking that I've been picking on minor points. Let's take some major points of morality, then--like the sanctity of human life. That is no more an innate law of human nature than intellectual property rights. In fact, "civilized" cultures violate it every day. While cold-blooded murder may be taboo, killing the enemy on the field of battle is considered heroic! Basically, we twist our own moral laws to suit our needs. What about cannibalistic cultures? To most of us, eating human flesh is utterly repulsive, but some cultures have no qualms about it, even considering it a way of showing respect to the deceased (some cultures believe that one can gain the strength and power of the deceased by eating his or her flesh, and doing so acknowledges that the deceased was indeed strong or powerful).

It is fairly clear to me that morality is not innate, it is taught. I do agree with most of Bugs argument, but I think that one section includes some very dangerous thinking. The above is not intended as a refutation of his argument, just a caution. My argument is probably pretty jumbled, since I just typed it out as it came to me. I would have taken more care with it had I actually been a participant in the debate. As it is, hopefully it will serve as some food for thought.

I must say...on here there is a set code of behaviour that all are aware of and are expected to abide by. You all agree to it when you sign up.

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

There is no Devil, it's just God when he drinks!

--Robin Williams.



'Me no here. Me go bye. Leave me message. Me reply.'

Wolfen's Sig Site

quote:

---

I must say...on here there is a set code of behaviour that all are aware of and are expected to abide by. You all agree to it when you sign up.

---

Very true. And that would seem to support what I said, unless I'm misreading you. The fact that such a code needs to be formalized would indicate that it is not innate, right?

Well, I'm not about to go and puch holes in Bugs rebutal...at least, not until InSiDeR posts his...I think that would be unfair.

I am thoroughly happy that Bugs finally moved the debate to the philosophical realm...because that is where it really belongs...and I'm also glad to see that Bugs leaves the whole 'God' thing open (instead of using just the christian God). As expected (thanks Bugs, I just knew you would come out strong...kudos), Bugs does a very nice job.

I wish InSiDeR all the luck in the world...and hope he really thinks this through, and soundly researches his position.

@Master Suho...very good point(s)...and, of course, is one area that (if I had to follow Bugs rebutal) I would have addressed. However, I feel that at the moment, I will hold back my comments until my partner posts his, to avoid any possible rule violations...fair is fair. Of course, there are other areas to address...and Bugs post is exactly that which I would expect to come from him (we have debated often here, in this forum with one another, one gets a 'feel' for the other, with time and experience).

All in all, I feel that the Formal Debate has started off very well, and has a real chance to become a permanent feature here. Kudos to BeeKay, and everyone that has helped get this thing off the ground.

Though I have questions to add, I'm sure that others do, as well, and I will refrain from asking (I am involved in the debate itself and therefore, I feel that others should have the honor of asking...)

In response to skaarjj...uh, did you really read through what I posted? I in no way, shape or form, proclaimed the absolute 'fact' of the Big Bang...on the contrary, I offered a point to the opposite, as well. I used that to rebut CFBs post. Though the Big Bang is currently popular as a theory, and does have considerable observational evidence, that in no way makes it a fact...it is a theory, nothing more (albeit a theory with some evidence).

On with the Debate!

WS: I admire your desire to stick to the rules, but I imagine it must be hard for you not say anything!

I was just posting some things I thought of after reading Bugs' post. Being a member of the peanut gallery, I feel it is my solemn duty to throw out "food for thought."

Speaking of food, I think we ran out of peanuts...

Yeah, I've had to gag myself, and tie my toes together (I'm typing this with a blue crayon held in my mouth...they actually don't taste all that bad...and keeps me from bursting out). I would really love to 'lay into it'...but, according to the rules, I will just have to wait...'mmphfff grgdft! Lrght hmmrrt!' *gestelates wildly with arms*

As I stated in a previous post in the older PG thread, (concerning the Bible, but the idea can be applied to most religious doctrines) The original intent of the Old Testament, and for the most part, the New Testament as well, was to provide instruction in moral behavior for Jewish families. These stories were adopted and embellished upon by a small sect of rebels that became known as Christians, and have been added to over a period of centuries. While a great deal of the Bible is proveably true, on a completely historical, location and governmental basis, the majority of the actual stories and parables in the Book are stories to illustrate a point. (Parables of Jesus in particular... Do you think that every story he told had a basis in fact?)

With the great variety of cultures in existence in this wild and wonderful world of ours, it is no wonder that we also have a great variety of religious beliefs. Yes, morality has to be taught. But what is taught is each culture's SPECIFIC ideas on morality, and those are not necessarily ours. However, each culture also has a strong idea of right and wrong that rests within their system of morality. I believe that is the point that Bugs was trying to make there.

The religous and moral ideas of a cannabalistic culture maintain that your enemies' physical and spiritual strength can and should be ingested and added to your own strength. In their eyes, that is "right" and "good". In our eyes, it is not. But that only has to do with what we have been taught is right and wrong. The very basis of all moral instruction is intensely cultural, and the specifics of our teachings only can apply within our culture alone, but that does not negate the necessity of having those teachings in a human culture. Your ideas of "right' and "good" do not have to be the same as mine in order for you to maintain a belief in a Higher Power. The fact that all human cultures that have been documented ("primative" or not) have some sort of metaphysical belief system proves that.

I have only one problem with the direction this debate is taking, and I think that all of the participants (and I'm sure, InSiDer when he does post) have done a bang up job in documenting their points. My problem is that the participants so far are limiting the idea of "God" to the popular monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. I personally think that belief in a Higher Power could be better supported with a more all-encompassing idea of God, since "God" with one face or another (or several) exists within most all religious ideas.


Bodhisattva: an enlightened being full of generosity who chooses to remain on this plane in order to help others find enlightenment.
Cell 617

So Bohdi, I think you really need to read my post again...I have never, ever reduced my position to that. I have, however, used these 'major' religions to dispute points by my opponents, yes.

You should read what I post before you throw me to the lions...

bodhi23, I chose to argue for the Judeo-Xian-Islam type of God because it fits in with the rest of my world view if I were to take the points I made on to their conclusion. Once a basis for right and wrong have been established, then the ramifications of doing wrong have to be dealt with. This all works its way on down the line but I think that is out of scope for this particular debate.

There are very different concepts of "higher power" when we move to the "eastern" religions. We could actually go on and on just about that too.

WebShaman, I know what you mean about holding back. There have been more than a few times I wanted to jump in here and go at it but that might mess up the follow up questions. I'll just sit over here patiently and await the next step. I can't wait to read InSiDeR's reply!

My bad WS. Yes, it is true, your posting deals pretty strictly with scientific theories, and much less with the religious/philosophical aspect of it. I apologize for offending you in that manner. It just seems that the Bible is being utilized a lot as a reference and that all the references necessarily point to the Big 3 religions. It narrows the focus of "God" down quite a bit in the grand scheme of things. WS, I wouldn't ever throw you to the lions. I was merely making a statement about a recurring theme in the debate.

Yes, theology gets a little screwy when you go eastern, but the different theologies allow for a great many different perspectives on the whole "Does God Exist" questions. My feeling is that they shouldn't be discounted. I do realize that a discourse on the theologies of several religious doctrines would be a little long-winded, and I DID NOT say that the positions presented were in the least bit WRONG (and it's all relative anyway)... Just that I haven't noticed any support coming from any other religious arenas, where I know there is a lot of scholarly thought. In My Humble Opinion, of course...

There's no end to the length of debate anyone could have over religion and the existence of God. I do understand the forum is limited for readability, and of necessity, not all the valid points can be presented. I only mentioned it because I think that using multiple philosophical views would present a more encompassing argument. Perhaps it is fodder for a different debate. By no means were my remarks intended to insult anyone. As I said, I think everyone's done an incredible job of presenting their positions. Regardless of their actual thoughts on the subject.

(could someone call the nurse? I think I need a higher ration of pills...)

[This message has been edited by bodhi23 (edited 06-24-2002).]

Hmm...The reason that I narrowed down my post to the Christian God is because I am Prodistant, and I was focusing on referances that were written by Christian authors defending the Christian God. I do realize that some religions (Muslim etc) are very closely related to Chrsitian, but they weren't what I was trying to defend.

Well, it does make sense to argue what you know. And you are commended, CFB, for making the distinction.

Again, my apologies for trying to take the discussion in another direction...

"argue what you know"... Definitely, it might be interesting that after we've accomplished a few debates with people doing that, perhaps we should make people choose debate sides diametriclly opposed to their personal views of something.

quote:

---

people choose debate sides diametriclly opposed to their personal views of something.

---

Most of the debates I've ever been party to have done it that way. The people in charge (usually professors) have used it as a learning tool, and in fact placed a stipulation that you can't argue on the side of something you agree with.

It's an exercise in objective thinking and research.

Bhodi: I was using it to defend my religion, not as a learnin experience, but I defidently have learned a lot

Arguing diametrically opposed to your point of view...interesting. But doing that lijits your debate topics..what do you do if you have a topic everyone agrees on?

Koan 63, written on the wall of cell number 250:
Those who Believe
Can
Those who Try
Do
Those who Love
Live

If there even is such a topic as that... I would be asking why would there even be talk of a debate?

But I think that would be a problem because one team would be at too much of a disadvantage. It's not easy arguing for a point you really disagree with.

Actually, Bugimus, I think that it would be interesting...If people participated to their fullest, and didn't just slack off because they disagreed with that topic.


________________
counterfeitbacon <A HREF="http://www.ozoneasylum.com/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=OZONE&number=7" TARGET=_blank>

CFB, I'm cool with it but I was talking about the case where you had 4 people who all agreed on a topic and then you chose 2 of them to debate the other side. I think that might be inbalanced... but if people were up to it, I would love to sit in the peanut gallery on that one.

bodhi: you are correct when you say that each culture has a different idea of "right" and "wrong," and that despite these differences they have in common the fact that they do have some sort of moral code. The intention of my post was to point out the dangers of assuming that one culture's version of "right" should be applied to all cultures. I will quote Bugs again for clarification:

quote:

---

You may be objecting to the idea of a common standard of behavior for mankind on the basis that there are so many different cultures and standards of morality. But this simply is not the case. The world's civilizations, vis-?vis morality, have far more in common than they differ.

---

Here he is explicitly saying that there are not that many different cultures and standards of morality. That is a precursor to choosing the one "correct" standard of morality, which is the foundation for the intellectual justification of imperialism and exploitation. This is, of course, off the subject of whether or not God exists. The whole purpose of that long-winded post of mine was merely to point out the dangers of that argument.

My other main point was that mankind is not born with an innate sense of morality. On the personal level, "right" and "wrong" equate to "good for me" and "bad for me"--ie, they are utterly selfish. We only learn morality when in contact with society. Incidentally, this fits in with Durkheim's theory that the sacred is the collectiveness of human society (but that's really another story). Anyway, I just don't think that morality offers any proof that there is a god. I know that Bugs used the term "conscience," but in my mind they are the same thing; we only "develop" a conscience after society instills in us its mores and standards.

In closing:

quote:

---

Your ideas of "right' and "good" do not have to be the same as mine in order for you to maintain a belief in a Higher Power.

---

Never said they did. I was just saying (or trying to say) that I don't think the existence of a "conscience" offers proof that there is a god. I guess I just didn't say it all that well.

I'm gonna wait and see what questions Beekay chooses from here before I jump in on this. I think that's part of the deal.

Suho-
It looks like what you're concerned about is the error of ethnocentricity, the idea that my culture is better than your culture (and vice-versa)... A common error in human thinking. That's not what I meant at all.

And from what I got out of Bugs' post didn't say that to me. But your perspective is different from mine, especially in the sense that you live in a different culture. So the difference in perspective is to be expected. And please don't take that as an insult to either your intelligence or your culture, because it isn't meant to be so. Differences of opinion are important to discussion. If everyone in the world agreed on everything, life would be boring! (Though I firmly believe there are other ways to settle differences without blowing each other up...)

My statements about religion as a teaching tool for morality weren't directed at proving the existence of god. I was just remarking on the fact that most recorded cultures USE religion to TEACH morality. Regardless of whether or not god exists at all. I guess my point was that as far as religion and morality is concerned, it doesn't matter whether or not god exists. But also that taking in the different philosophies that exist would give a more complete picture of human morality, and thus a more complete view of "God" as an entity.

I think, on the whole, we are saying more or less the same thing, but we're saying it differently. You say that having a conscience doesn't prove god exists, I say it doesn't have to. It is dangerous to apply one culture's beliefs to another culture's actions. That's one of the reasons we send people to study other people's cultures, to find out where we differ and why. Ethnocentricity is always a danger when studying others cultures. The only thing you have to compare our culture to is your culture. It's a matter of being aware of that fact and making a point to accept other cultures at face value.

I've a question then, for the Debate Fourm...
Participants:
In proposing proofs as to the existence or non-existence of God, is it realistic to use your own belief system to base your reasearch on? Would not a more universal answer be better found by using a broader selection of sources, even those that do not necessarily agree with your personal dogma? Anyone can find resources to support their own ideas, but what about finding support in other belief systems?

WS, Bugs, CFB, and InSiDer, you guys are allowed to digest that one, but don't let me have it until the question answer session... (and I know you want to!) We have to see what InSiDer posts first...

Agreed. I'll be waiting...though if you examine my post, you will see that I included many different belief systems in it...also those from the far east...but seeing that CFB mostly stayed within the 'judo-christian area and scientific realm, my rebuttal was mostly tailored to that.

Yes, WS, you do pull from many belief systems, but you use your own focus, science, to refute every one of them.

What I gathered from your post was that regardless of your religious beliefs, science has proven over and over that God cannot exist. Am I reading you right? I want to make sure I understand it as you meant it. I assume BeeKay will allow you a brief clarification? It would make for more educated questions...

No, not quite. I am not so 'scientific' orientated as it may sound...I do have beliefs (and they are strongly supported by personal experience and evidence). However, a belief in God, or 'supreme being' I do not have...and I believe that all the evidence points to just that...I really like the principles of Zen, for example...and General Semantics (see here http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000498.html ).

I will also raise a point (and it has much to do with my beliefs)...I believe that Mankind is still evolving as one can see in the fossil records. Thus, a belief in God (or supreme being, whatever) largely has to do with this...as does 'conciousness' (that is my opinion and belief). I would expand on this further, but I feel that would be in violation of the debate rules...

[This message has been edited by WebShaman (edited 06-25-2002).]

Ok, I gotcha. Interesting. Perhaps in another thread we can elaborate on that sometime? As an anthropology major, I'm intrigued.

We put it differently, but I think we said the same thing. I'm satisfied at any rate.

I do like this whole debate thing. It raises interesting thoughts. I do hope that I haven't truly offended anyone with my poking and prodding...

Poke and prod away. And I do appreciate the participants' willingness to hold back in this thread ... saving their thoughts for the formal debate. There is no way for me to realistically police that. My job will be really tough when it comes to picking out questions for the debators to answer. That task will make me do some serious reading tha thinking ...

I have also withheld my opinions here. There are a lot of things I would love to throw out there in response to Bug's post. I've heard the arguments he used many times in the past ...

Cell Number: 494

Beekay, as part of the formal part of the debate, will you be able to get in and address the points the debaters covered? Or will you maintain a complete moderator status throughout?

Complete moderator throughout. I am biased towards one side of the issue right now and so if I was to start getting involved in the debate's points myself, my comments would probably be skewed to one side. If the debate actually got ugly (flames, personal attacks, completely off the wall arguments) then I would step in as referee to push things back on track. Otherwise, I just act as the great looking Master of Ceremonies ...

Cell Number: 494

Sorry for the delay everyone. I am still not fully prepared for my response, I am thinking long and hard on this, and I am trying and trying to come up with something that might seem a little intelligent, because so far I think that some of my points have already been counter-acted by bugs/cfb or some of my theories may have also been stated by WS so what I am doing is I am putting myself in the state of mind everyday where I am writing about a paragraph a day into a notepad file and then later I will all compile it into a nice little response for this debate . Personally I think that some of these, uhhh, posts in the formal thread are uhh, a little to long. You don't want to give "all" your points out in 1 rebuttel then you won't have anything to talk about in the next round . But I will say for some people I will make my post relatively short, not too much but just enough to get the point across because as the 4'th poster I took 2 long hours of reading that thread and lemme-tell-ya, it wasn't easy comprehending everything that was mentioned.

But yes I am working on it...

P.S. to my partner: WS get your ass in the PS Pong Forum I'm dying to finish that match

Take your time InSiDer, and do it right. We'll wait for ya!

I agree, I don't mind waiting a bit longer to allow you to put your best foot forward.

Just had to post one of my favorite bits of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, on the subject of the Babel Fish:

"Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything that mindbogglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," says man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn´t it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don´t. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn´t thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic. "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing."

But it does raise a question: does proof (or the search or the desire to search for proof) deny faith?



Odd behavior; even temperament...

Unfortunately, I can't think of anything that truly exists that fits in the same category as that Babel Fish...
Though that is one of my favorite parts of that trilogy... (yes, trilogy. After the 4th, the rest don't count!

Woohoo Wangenstein, I lllooovvveee those books! Anyways, I don't think that proof defys faith (is that how you put it?) because your just backing up your faith.

Another issue here is that proof is subjective to the individual. It's really more about how much proof any one person requires to accept a thing. Take any historical event you want, let alone religious claims, and I bet I can find at least one person who would deny it ever happened.

How very true. Lots of people claim to see aliens all the time, yet a great portion of the world continues to deny their existence... (for example...)
Alas, another thread, for another day...

We actually did an alien thread a while ago. Lemme see if it's still around... nope it scrolled away into the sunset, alas.