WHAT FOR IS THIS DEBATE?

C

Chris63

Registered Senior Member
Hello again,

When I read your all posts I often wonder what for is that whole discussion?
I’m asking, because I really don’t believe that changing such fundamental basis for our personality like belief in God or Science could be made under the force of others verbal argumentation. Even such case happened I think that it had been “prepared” by prior “hard occurrence”. So, what the purpose is of that arguing against other posts?
Please find below some possible reasons (by me) of such long term discussion between limited number of participants:
1. This is competition – participant arguing to win the satisfaction “I’m better”.
2. This is the way to confirm oneself outlook of live (that outlook of live often is incoherent and cause suspense: Is it really it?)
3. This is the way to save other’s souls/health minds. NOTE: this is a quite good way to forget about my soul/health mind.
4. This is the way to share the results of oneself considerations with others – especially when her/his husband/wife doesn’t want to listen such stores.
I’m not in the position to prove the nonsense of this debate – really not. I was active member of your community a year ago (my previous user name was “Ivan Kruk”) and I could indicate all of this four above reasons in my mind but there is much more interesting reason/sense of this debate which I discovered some time later. I have realized that my hard involvement in discussion required to consider ones again all of my truths or definitely judge what my opinion is . And during such consideration some new explanations appeared and some old truths become little bid changed. Finally my participation in the religious debate was a significant step in development of myself.
I’m really wonder if what are your reflections on your participation in this debate – please be open and genuine.

Chris63


------------------
 
Greetings Chris63,

Personally, I dunno why I'm here half the time. Boredom, I suppose. I log on when there's nothing cookin' at work, and try to make some sense, occasionally anyway.

There is the consideration that nothing makes your own beliefs gell in your own head better than having to defend them. When I first arrived here I was in transition from an agnostic to a theist point of view. But now that it's all gelled, what's my excuse?

I suppose there is also the ego issue. I do feel superior occasionally, but more often I get knocked down or shown up, and that's always good for the character. I have also made friends from this forum, one of which I have actually met in person. I also drag my friends in from elsewhere and try to get them to join the fracas, with varying degrees of success. My husband reads these threads too, and though he doesn't post we do occasionally discuss what's been said here. His viewpoint is so similar to mine he rarely feels the need to post anyway.

Eh..it passes the time, and it's slightly less mindless than TV
 
Hi Ivan,

I remember you, welcome back. You made some good posts back last year. Why change your id?

Doubtless there are many reasons why people debate here, and of course I can’t speak for everyone. Here are a few reasons why I think this debate continues.

1. We are all basically competitive (survival instinct) and we want to ‘show off’ our skills.

2. Any ideas that have value need to be tested. What better way than to put them on display and let others pull them apart. If they are sound then they will withstand the onslaught. If you have made a mistake then you will soon learn. This key mechanism helps us to adapt and to learn.

3. Some like to preach the ideas of others because they have none of their own but desperately want to join the party.

4. Some simply want to learn from others.

5. Others simply want to share their knowledge and gain pleasure from seeing others learn.

6. Others are angry at injustices and want others to believe their solutions.

7. Some are told they must tell others (i.e. Christian Evangelism).

8. Some are addicted to message boards.

9. Some simply enjoy an intellectual challenge (competitiveness again).

I think I am mainly 1,2,4,9.

I think point 2 is the most valuable. I can also confirm that I have learnt a great deal during my past year here which has significantly helped my personal growth. But there also seems to be enormous value from the interaction itself. For example I could probably have learnt what I have from studying and reading relevant books, but that route simply lacks the adrenaline rush that comes from researching the material to refute the argument of a fellow debater. The debate forces me to read material that I would probably never have read otherwise.

Have fun
Cris
 
Chris63 -

You and Cris both left off what I consider an important reason..

Fun!

I find debate extremely entertaining. Of course, its not the only reason.. I also participate to learn. I learn about other people's view, and how to better defend my own.

And anyway, the occasional 'conversion' does happen. Perhaps not by the 'heavyweights' of these contests, but I would wager that many people read without posting.

FyreStar
 
By Cris' numerology, I'd say I'm about 1245.

I have friends and acquaintances with whom I engage in similar oral discussions every now and then, but they can never reach the depth or expressiveness that written discussions sometimes reach. Additionally, it is somehow awkward discussing such things in a casual manner, because you end up immediately labeled too cerebral to make good company. So, when I feel a need to be cerebral, I end up here. Then, written discussion is more memorable (even beside the fact that you can look up what you've "said" a year ago); I find that I retain better the thoughts and points that I have put in writing (an effect not unsupported by scientific studies of this phenomenon), and through this I am able to hold ground and make better progress. The richer the context, the better.

I do enjoy teaching, learning and winning.

As far as learning goes on the religion board, I learn the most when I confront certain beliefs that I originally find paradoxical and downright puzzling. Debating with such people helps me better understand the origins and mechanics of such beliefs, the cause and effect of them -- which is not too far from my scientific ambition (to understand the workings of the human mind.)

Teaching -- any time we articulate anything, we teach, whether intentionally or not (teaching in itself can be simply construed, I think, as information transfer, with the more orthodox notion imposing a methodical structure over such transfers.) The quality of what we teach may vary, as can the purpose behind the teaching. To be a teacher of value, one tries to work with substance; conveying useless fluff is only a waste of the students' energy (and ultimately quite inconsiderate and disrespectful.)

While a good scrap is fun, and though winning is enjoyable, I like to hope that it is not the only thing I can achieve. If I win, I don't want people to go away saying, "So Boris <u>beat</u> me, but if only I knew more, then I'd show him..." I hope every time I kick someone's butt, that I might make them do some thinking and some searching. And I don't want those who "lose" to simply search for counter-facts to my facts (although that is appreciated); I want them to ultimately ponder, in case they "lost", whether I might actually be right (what is it, really, that makes one belief more worthy than another?) I want people to feel themselves in my shoes, to gain an alternate perspective, however temporarily; if my "victories" do not accomplish that, then they are worthless. Personally, I have taken quite a few trips down such empathy lanes already, and I invariably end up learning a lot.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.
 
"I’m really wonder if what are your reflections on your participation in this debate – please be open and genuine."

beyond all that was mentioned above, I also hope to gain something new, the ideas and imagination of others.

------------------
It's all very large.
 
If nothing more, argument forces thought, even if it's for the purpose of protecting ego. <img src = "http://www.exosci.com/ubb/icons/icon10.gif"> Also, if we are fortunate, a new and imaginative thought is thrown up on the board.

------------------
It's all very large.
 
If nothing more, argument forces thought, even if it's for the purpose of protecting ego.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that. I'll smoke to that. I'll toke to that. ;)

But I have no answers of my own. They're far too muddled; essentially, above all else, it's because I spend more time thinking than writing these days, and while I'm only a little disturbed by this, it seems that the regular habit of trying to organize my thoughts into cohesive ideas is a good one.

Besides, Ufos, God, and Politics? What in the world more do I need to keep me chattering away?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
 
Ivan!!

How are you? Long time no hear :(

Nice to see you back if its only a quick stop over.

Most peoples reply's to your question gel well with me, but there's one more thing, a point that Boris touched on about teaching and learning.

"TO INSPIRE AND TO BE INSPIRED"

My main reason for coming when I can is to try to enspire other and myself to go beyond the circle we live in, to contemplate things regardless of how illogical or irrational or far fetched or stupid they may seem.

To inspire people to reach out to God and others with the precious life they have, to live that life, to enjoy that life and to be a window to the world through that life of who it is that gave that life.

Anyway nice to see you around again.

Allcare

Tony H2o
 
I would just like to point out the fact that God does not exist, has never existed and never will exist. He is neither outside time, nor pre-dating time, nor in control of time. He's just out of time.

And fictional.

------------------

-------------------
God does not exist.
 
Originally posted by LargeToad:
I would just like to point out the fact that God does not exist, has never existed and never will exist. He is neither outside time, nor pre-dating time, nor in control of time. He's just out of time.

And fictional.
Click to expand...

What were we thinking?

You should have said that thousands of years ago.
You could have saved billions of people a lot of time.

Well, now that you've settled that, what's next?
 
Now we should press on, ignoring baseless religious superstitions, and develop a meaning to life.
 
Originally posted by Cris:
Now we should press on, ignoring baseless religious superstitions, and develop a meaning to life.
Click to expand...

Press on to what?
 
I would like to believe that we come here not to make any sweeping changes in humanity but to share our ideas with others and, in the process, feed that nagging little creature that is constantly hungry for knowledge of what else is out there. My brothers grew up pretty isolated. Whatever my parents said about the world, that was how it was. I was the only one who managed to get an outside influence early on. I thnk we come to this board to get outside influence so that our thoughts don't inbreed and create these twisted little mutant-thoughts that exist only in stagnation.

I guess we're here because we think, because we like to think, and because we like to hear others' thoughts.
 
"I would just like to point out the fact that God does not exist, has never existed and never will exist. He is neither outside time, nor pre-dating time, nor in control of time. He's just out of time."

A universal negative is hard to prove. So, you've managed to disprove the existence of a being who transcends our universe? You have done away with a being who transcends the ten-dimensions (or is it eleven now?) of our universe? I'd like to see your refutation of a being capable of creating space-time dimensions at will? I wouldn't be too confident in your assertion of disproving the existence of God.

One reason I love the intellectual nature of Christianity is because God transcends the universe. A lot of arguments about omnipotence and this and that fail mainly because a four-dimensional being is imperfectly describing God's attributes and knocking down a straw man.

This is in a slightly different context. It pertains to the trinity. I composed it today. Its part of a larger unfinished work. See what you can glean from it:

I feel compelled to point out the paradoxical nature of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. God is one yet God is three persons (note Christianity does not support polytheism nor is it a tritheistic faith). The three-in-oneness of God is extremely hard to fathom at best and some, myself included, might say impossible. I called the trinity a paradox rather than a contradiction because our transcendent yet immanent Creator is beyond perfect perception to us. I do not mean to imply we can just wish away "contradictions" concerning God's nature at will. What I mean is synonomous to what numerous sciptural passages teach:

Isaiah 55:8-9, "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD. 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."

Psalm 145:3, "Great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; His greatness no one can fathom."

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, although it was pertaining to the problem of evil, pointed this out, "For if there is a God, His wisdom must be infinitely superior to ours, and we will not understand all of His ways . . . This is the only answer Job got, and Job was satisfied, for he was a good philosopher. This posture is not blind fideism but eminent reasonableness." 11

We may not be able to explain paradoxes like the Trinity but we can explain why we cannot explain them. If everything in the Bible about God was understandable it would be convincing evidence against the Bible's credibility. A book written by only men would contain such material, but not a book inspired by an infinitely greater, transcendent Creator whose ways and greatenss we cannot fathom!

Romans 9:18, "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden."

Add those verses in with the notion of progressive revelation, Biblical anthropomorphisms and 1 Corinthians 13:11-12, and one is intellectually justified in adhering to paradoxical views recorded in the Bible.

1 Corinthians 13:11-12, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12 Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."

In other words, if the primary source of my epistemology concerning who God is, what He does, what my life is about, why we are here et cetera, teaches a three-in-oneness of
the God it reveals then I believe it. This treatise is concerned with who the biblical Jesus is. The credibility and inspiration of the Bible will not be include in this study. The Trinity is a large enough issue in itself.

James Leo Garrett, "The dotrine of the trinity points to the mystery of the Divine being whom Christians worship and serve and who by their confession is at work in their lives. As a truth the Trinity has baffled the most astute Christian thinkers throughout the history of Christianity. It defies normal human logic and transcends our human, modal, natural, and psychological analogies." 12

11. Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Kreeft and Tacelli, pg 124.
12. Systematic Theology: Bibilical, Historical, and Evangelical, Chapter 23, page 288.

Peace,
Vinnie

------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
 
Originally posted by Cris:
and develop a meaning to life.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks.

I actually saw that and I assumed that was part of the pressing on.

Since you are separating the two, that must mean that you are at square zero without even a direction to go in.

Without trying to put you on a spot, what plan do you have to find a meaning for life?

From where I sit, you have nothing really to look for, you have no direction to look in, you have nowhere to start from and you have nowhere to go.

I can see why looking for the meaning of life would be right up there on the to-do list.
 
Hi Tony,

I see the human race at only the beginning of its evolution. The recent rapid progress in genetic science and computer science gives strong indications that we are about to undergo a very rapid and massive change (some call this the singularity). This change is seen by many as the creation of super intelligence, either through humans or through AI. After this we may well come closer to defining where we want to direct future human (or probably posthuman) efforts. At the present time there is no meaning to human life, other than meanings placed on the lives of individuals by themselves, but as a race we as yet do not have a defined direction.

Here are some links that explore these ideas further. If you have not met this thinking before then you may well see it as quite radical, especially Transtopianism. Even if you might not agree with these movements they will perhaps give you a view to alternative philosophies. Note that some of these articles are by leading research scientists, and heads of University departments.

Transhumanism is a good place to start - http://www.transhumanism.com/

The singularity – http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/faculty/vinge/misc/singularity.html

Super Intelligence – http://www.nickbostrom.com/superintelligence.html

Computing Power Equaling the Human Brain – http://transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm

Mind Uploading –http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploading/MUHomePage.html

And finally Transtopianism – http://members.wbs.net/homepages/c/r/y/cryonic4life/index.html

You should see that much thought and planning is well underway for preparing the human race for the next few decades and beyond.

Have fun
Cris


[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 19, 2001).]
 
Tony,

Note that I am not looking for the meaning to life, there isn't one yet. The intelligence of the human race is far too low to define something so immense. We must evolve first and generate our own meaning.

Cris
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top