For those who attended the horror that was the Christians and Sceptics 'Dialogue' on last thursday, all I can say is :"Ow, I think I just ruptured my spleen". (someting I said a number of times during the actual event).
If anyone would like to continue (or actually start) the debate/dialogue regarding the question "Do we need God?" or our favorite "Does God exist?" or the more relavent"Is it reasonable to beleive in God?", please feel free to make this the forum in which to do so. I would suggest starting a new thread/post for each indivdual question, so as to make the collection of replies neater and more coherent.
With regard to the event itself, I have this to say: Both side were poorly organised. The Sceptics especially so. The NASA (Newcastle Adventist Students Association) speakers spent much of the time pedalling account that a decent first year philosophy student could have refuted, or at least made a fair reply to. The Sceptics howerver, were not equipped to deal with even these somewhat elementary arguments. It would seem that NASA came out on top on the day, but only because their speakers were better at playing to the crowd. Don't be so smug guys, it was not a great victory.
So to everyone out there: If you want to have a real argument about God (or anything else) that might actually be a challenge, bring it on.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If you have faith in a god, you must have faith in *something* - the object of your faith. When deciding where to put your faith, how do you tell the difference between God and the more idea of God put forward by religious teachers? Can you believe in "God" itself, or can you only believe in dogma?
On ' God to make seemingly unlikely events more likely' I refer back to my earlier comment at http://uniofnewphilosophyclub.blogspot.com/2005/02/holt-on-intelligent-design.html
Post a Comment