Proposal: No God in NCAP. (1 Viewer)

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm really getting rather sick of the constant debate reguarding God in the NCAP forums. While certainly I do think the existance of God is a pertanent question, I feel that when it comes to some issues (i.e. the 'muhammed cartoon controversy') the question of whether or not God exists ruins the debate - Therefore I propose that the non-existance of God, or at least an agnostic position of unknowingness should be an enforced premise within NCAP when discussing an issue (other than say 'Does God Exist?') where the existance of God may affect the debate.

This is not an attack on God, it's just a way of bringing the forums back to some normalcy where an issue can be debated without someone claiming their theory is equally valid if you insert <supernatural being>.

 

[HotShot]

I'm really getting rather sick of the constant debate reguarding God in the NCAP forums. While certainly I do think the existance of God is a pertanent question, I feel that when it comes to some issues (i.e. the 'muhammed cartoon controversy') the question of whether or not God exists ruins the debate - Therefore I propose that the non-existance of God, or at least an agnostic position of unknowingness should be an enforced premise within NCAP when discussing an issue where the existance of God may affect the debate.

so u just make it that GOD exist, rather than he doesnt. Because if he does exist then it changes the result entirely. But if he doesnt it really doesnt change much. For instance if you walk outside - who made u walk outside? the brain? who made the brain? - GOD>

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No we make it that God doesn't exist, or that because we do not know whether or not God exists we should act in a way as if he does not exist ... because we have no proof of his existance.

 

[HotShot]

No we make it that God doesn't exist, or that because we do not know whether or not God exists we should act in a way as if he does not exist ... because we have no proof of his existance.

lol, but you can you prove that he doesnt exist?

there is proof that god exist, but you fail to acknowlege it.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

lol, but you can you prove that he doesnt exist?

I can't prove that he doesn't exist, but I can't proove that santa claus doesn't exist either... the fact that I have no credible evidence to support a belief in him leads me to say either 'there's no way for me to know because he's supernatural' or 'the provisional truth is that he does not exist, until i find proof'. If we take your suggestion and make an underlying premise that God does exist... then in every single thread everyone will just say 'God did it'.

there is proof that god exist, but you fail to acknowlege it.

There's not.

 

[HotShot]

There's not.

even if there was proof you wouldnt acknowledge it. you can prove somethin exists if you have come to understand. we havent understood god yet and so it is difficult to prove that he exists.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

even if there was proof you wouldnt acknowledge it.

Yes I would, where have I shown any bias or dislike of the truth? I am a truth seeking person.

we havent understood god yet and so it is difficult to prove that he exists.

That and that he's supernatural... once you understand him he will become a natural force in the world, we'll be able to measure his actions etc. But that's not ever going to happen as far as I can tell.

 

[hiphophooray123]

hotshot thinks ntb is close-minded lol.

 

[HotShot]

Yes I would, where have I shown any bias or dislike of the truth? I am a truth seeking person.



That and that he's supernatural... once you understand him he will become a natural force in the world, we'll be able to measure his actions etc. But that's not ever going to happen as far as I can tell.

according to believers of god - god cannot be understood by humans....
perhaps we should eliminate religion from NCAP as it primarily concerns with god?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I think religion is fine for discussion, it affects us out there in the wider society etc... I think an analysis of religion should be done from a perspective where you ignore the unprovable existance of a supernatural being and just assess it on the basis of what it does/is.

Of course however if more questions come up specifically reguarding god, or god in the religion... that should be allowed. But if for instance it's a thread on abortion, I don't think christians or muslims should be allowed to argue their outrage on the basis of their belief.

 

[davin]

not-that-bright, while i agree in concpet that that'd make things easier, i don't think its a practical solution. much as you feel its not right to bring in religious beliefs, people do use those religious beliefs to help define right and wrong in their view. I don't think you can ignore that for any issue where morality is involved.

 

[Generator]

A simple bandaid solution - if a thread takes a turn for the worse (ie, if the thread's focus is shifted away from the stated issue to one discussing the notion of god), direct those members responsible for the shift to this thread. If the message doesn't get through, I suggest that everyone then does all that they can to return the thread to its original focus (or to the last relevant tangent). Finally, if that fails, contact myself or Xayma in order to see whether there is anything that we can do.

 

[withoutaface]

I say we ban the religious.

 

[volition]

I say we ban the religious.

Let's start with HotShot

 

[Captain Gh3y]

Isn't it funny though that this thread was IMMEDIATELY hijacked by HotShot and turned into a clone of the other God discussions?

It's almost like what happened with the cartoons

 

[Serius]

even if there was proof you wouldnt acknowledge it. you can prove somethin exists if you have come to understand. we havent understood god yet and so it is difficult to prove that he exists.

no ntb is right, there is no proof, the fact that there is no proof is actually embraced by the religous, it is the whole idea of "having faith" that god cannot be proven to exist, for if it can be proven then there is no faith in the matter. - see Constantine the movie for a hardcore representation of this fact

 

[Xayma]

no ntb is right, there is no proof, the fact that there is no proof is actually embraced by the religous, it is the whole idea of "having faith" that god cannot be proven to exist, for if it can be proven then there is no faith in the matter. - see Constantine the movie for a hardcore representation of this fact

Or read the HHGTG series for a better explanation.

 

[davin]

i believe its that any time people bring up God, the debate shifts from wahtever it was before, to the existance of god, in an attempt to decide if the religious viewpoint is valid

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Does god stand in the way of your ideology?

'my ideology' ? I'm fucking liberal! What the hell are you?

i believe its that any time people bring up God, the debate shifts from wahtever it was before, to the existance of god, in an attempt to decide if the religious viewpoint is valid

Exactly.

 

[HotShot]

BUt we cannot put aside religious matters, as they crucial to our societal matters. Excluding religion from discussion is basically a discussion on that is biased. As such in order for balance discussion should invovle religion.

Religion is mainly concerned with GOD.