Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

People forcing their moral opinions on others

24

Comments

  • #52
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    hobochris wrote: »
    Just because someone believes it to be wrong doesn't mean others should not be aloud with the except of where it involves an unwilling participant (i.e. rape etc).
    You've not actually read this thread, have you?


  • #53
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    hobochris wrote: »
    My view is that no legislation should be put in place based on an individuals views.

    Just because someone believes it to be wrong doesn't mean others should not be aloud with the except of where it involves an unwilling participant (i.e. rape etc).

    legislation should only be in place for protection not restriction.

    Impossible suggestion. What if someone has an opinion that people will be protected by certain measures? Indeed this is the only way that legislation can come into being.


  • #54
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You might want to read it again:
    Matthew 18:10 wrote:
    "Take care that you do not despise one of these little ones for I tell you in heaven their angels continually see the face of my Father in heaven."

    There isn't really much of a technically about it for me. Gay people are just as much children of God as anyone else. Therefore by hating them the WBC are committing a sin. We have all been given another chance to put ourselves right with God before the judgement, and all of us need it, none more than the other.
    you see that's another problem with following the bible. The early part is all about specific rules about life eg don't eat pork, smiting people, destroying cities, stoning people, slavery etc etc and the latter part is all about forgiveness and limitless love and turning the other cheek. You and Fred Phelps are both following the same bible but the bible contradicts itself

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course it doesn't. It's ones free choice to consider Christianity a moral guide in their lives in the first place.
    ok you have the free will to call yourself a christian or not but if you want to call yourself a christian and some part of the bible go against what you believe to be right, you don't have the right to overrule the higher power and break the rule that you disagree with while still calling yourself a christian. It's all or nothing surely?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I take a different view on it. Theres a universal morality system, which was the product of the creation just as much as the laws of science are. This doesn't weaken the argument of God's existence, but strengthens it for me. People run away from these moral guidelines the whole time, thus what separates humanity from God in a Christian mindset.

    Hang on, that doesn't make sense. There are atheists who follow a moral code very similar if not identical to yours, there are members of other religions who follow the code, there are people living on islands who have never heard of the judeo-christian god who follow the code. If people have never heard of your particular god or any of his works and yet they still follow a moral code almost identical to yours, how does that strengthen the argument for your particular god's existence?

    It might strengthen the argument for some form of creator that implanted universal rules but it says absolutely nothing about the judeo-christian god.

    And if these rules are a product of creation, what is the purpose of the bible? Why is someone who follows the same moral code as you less moral just because they're using the universal morality system as their base instead of the same system written down in a book?

    I agree with you that there's a universal morality system but I believe we have it because all the animals who didn't killed each other until they were all gone. The animals who possessed this moral code in their genome survived and reproduced. Morality is a survival mechanism and is a result of evolution imo
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Bible is far more than a book of morals. It's not a result of "need" it's more a case of acknowledging the world the way it is apparent to us in a Christian view. The world is not conceivable without God for Christians, it couldn't be any more nonsensical without God.
    That's something you must accept once you reject god. The world is non-sensical. The reason the meaning of life has never been found is that "to reproduce" isn't a lofty enough reason for religious folk

    Jakkass wrote: »
    The one who follows the Biblical text. They are closer to the universal standards of rights and wrongs. Just because you think something is right and something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it is so.
    What about the universal morality system that has existed since creation? Can they not follow that instead?

    And just because some guy in a desert 2000 years ago said something is right doesn't make that so either tbh

    Jakkass wrote: »
    BTW, I don't follow God out of fear, but out of gratitude for the new chance I have been given. Why should a Christian have anything to fear if there is no condemnation in Christ Jesus? (Romans 8:1) We want to thank God for this chance and serve as a light to others. That's my primary goal in life anyway.
    Again the bible's contradictions. Can you explain what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if there is no condemnation?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I would contend that there is nothing to stop them. People who have distorted religion and people who have rejected it have both carried out acts of pillage and rape. Just look to the Crusades, or Stalin.
    You say there is nothing to stop them and yet the vast majority of them don't commit immoral acts. Why is that if morality comes from god?


  • #55
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you see that's another problem with following the bible. The early part is all about specific rules about life eg don't eat pork, smiting people, destroying cities, stoning people, slavery etc etc and the latter part is all about forgiveness and limitless love and turning the other cheek. You and Fred Phelps are both following the same bible but the bible contradicts itself

    No, the Christian New Testament explains how Christians read the Old Testament rather well. Walk through Romans. The Bible is one revelation developing from the beginning to the end. As of the revelation of Christ, the ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel have been fulfilled for the following reasons:
    1) Israel as a Torah bound state doesn't exist.
    2) The High Priests make the decisions
    3) Jesus is our High Priest in Christianity hence His rulings on OT laws are what count.

    Actually love as a concept in the New Testament also features in the same way in the old if you look to the Psalms and Proverbs of David and Solomon and in several other New Testament books. Infact the God which is the same in both testaments, promotes justice towards our neighbours even in the Torah. God has the right to judge.

    Punishment for sins is still there if you do not come to repent of them. God punished them then and He will punish people if they do not repent now.

    If you read the Bible chronologically as one revelation from start to end it makes a lot more sense.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    ok you have the free will to call yourself a christian or not but if you want to call yourself a christian and some part of the bible go against what you believe to be right, you don't have the right to overrule the higher power and break the rule that you disagree with while still calling yourself a christian. It's all or nothing surely?

    I believe what God believes to be right. This is the only measure that will ultimately matter. I trust that God has the best in mind for me with these laws and seeks to protect me.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Hang on, that doesn't make sense. There are atheists who follow a moral code very similar if not identical to yours, there are members of other religions who follow the code, there are people living on islands who have never heard of the judeo-christian god who follow the code. If people have never heard of your particular god or any of his works and yet they still follow a moral code almost identical to yours, how does that strengthen the argument for your particular god's existence?

    It strengthens the idea that there is a universal moral law that is binding to all people, and when you have a law you must surely question its source? One cannot say to another "you should know better" without having a source. That source for me is God.

    As for identical, no, I don't think that you will find an absolutely identical moral code to Christianity in other religions. Similarities perhaps but not identical moralities.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It might strengthen the argument for some form of creator that implanted universal rules but it says absolutely nothing about the judeo-christian god.

    I don't think that it weakens it like you seem to suggest it does. The start of all religious discourse is on identifying the existence of God, then and only then do we start to review more complex claims of Christianity such as the historicity of Christ and other events, the archaeological record in Israel and so on and so forth.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And if these rules are a product of creation, what is the purpose of the bible? Why is someone who follows the same moral code as you less moral just because they're using the universal morality system as their base instead of the same system written down in a book?

    The Bible tells us about who God is, and reminds us when we go astray what we should be doing. In my own personal situation I see it of particular value.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I agree with you that there's a universal morality system but I believe we have it because all the animals who didn't killed each other until they were all gone. The animals who possessed this moral code in their genome survived and reproduced. Morality is a survival mechanism and is a result of evolution imo

    So we created it ourselves?

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That's something you must accept once you reject god. The world is non-sensical. The reason the meaning of life has never been found is that "to reproduce" isn't a lofty enough reason for religious folk

    I can't see how things do not have a purpose.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What about the universal morality system that has existed since creation? Can they not follow that instead?

    And just because some guy in a desert 2000 years ago said something is right doesn't make that so either tbh

    If they believe in Jesus Christ and if they follow this universal morality system as it was intended to be followed then yes. In the early church there was no such thing as the Bible. I quoted Romans 2 last time, and this explains the exact situation. However the Bible makes this clear for us in writing when we stumble or fall out with the morality system delivered to us by God. Since we don't have people who witnessed the ministry of Christ or of the Jewish prophets it would be difficult to do without reading the Bible.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again the bible's contradictions. Can you explain what happened to the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if there is no condemnation?

    There is no condemnation in Christ Jesus.

    If you do not repent of your sins and believe in Jesus' message, then yes there will be condemnation by God. I never said that there wouldn't be judgement on anyone.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You say there is nothing to stop them and yet the vast majority of them don't commit immoral acts. Why is that if morality comes from god?

    Free will. People willfully disobey at times, and indeed people can fall out with it. There is no reason why it is any less binding on them then if it is indeed universal though.


  • #56
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, the Christian New Testament explains how Christians read the Old Testament rather well. Walk through Romans. The Bible is one revelation developing from the beginning to the end. As of the revelation of Christ, the ceremonial and judicial laws of Israel have been fulfilled for the following reasons:
    1) Israel as a Torah bound state doesn't exist.
    2) The High Priests make the decisions
    3) Jesus is our High Priest in Christianity hence His rulings on OT laws are what count.
    So when there are contradictions in the bible we are to take jesus' ruling on it? how can there be any differences whatsoever in a universal truth?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I believe what God believes to be right. This is the only measure that will ultimately matter. I trust that God has the best in mind for me with these laws and seeks to protect me.
    That is exactly word for word the logic used by suicide bombers and that is why it's not good to trust an old, mistranslated and misinterpreted book to give you your moral code

    Jakkass wrote: »
    It strengthens the idea that there is a universal moral law that is binding to all people, and when you have a law you must surely question its source? One cannot say to another "you should know better" without having a source. That source for me is God.
    But why must it be god? throughout history many things have been attributed to god but as science has developed we have learned more and more about the world around us and fewer and fewer things have been put down to "I don't know so it must be god". I'd be fairly confident that in a few decades the exact genetic sequence that gives us our moral code will be pinpointed.

    Its source for me is evolution. As I said animals who treated each other well survived better than ones who killed each other. Simple as that

    Jakkass wrote: »
    So we created it ourselves?
    Yes we did. We also wrote the bible all on our own
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I can't see how things do not have a purpose.
    You not being able to see it does not mean there is a purpose. No evidence has ever been shown of any guiding force in our lives. Good people are punished and bad people are rewarded. There is no discernible pattern to it. You want there to be a purpose because it gives your life meaning but that doesn't mean there is one

    Jakkass wrote: »
    If they believe in Jesus Christ and if they follow this universal morality system as it was intended to be followed then yes

    But if they follow this universal morality that is built into all of us, why is it necessary for them to also follow jesus christ? Is it not enough that they do unto others as they would have people do unto them? That idea existed long before JC and existed in places that were completely without his influence. It's just common sense and doesn't need divine guidance to be followed
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Free will. People willfully disobey at times, and indeed people can fall out with it. There is no reason why it is any less binding on them then if it is indeed universal though.

    That makes sense, the universal morality is binding on them because it's been built into them since creation. So why is any form of religion necessary if that is the case? Should our sub conscious not be leading us on the right path whether we read the refresher course or not?


  • #57
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So when there are contradictions in the bible we are to take jesus' ruling on it? how can there be any differences whatsoever in a universal truth?

    No, the Bible is consistent. The law still stands, Christians are told that they are under a New Covenant, but the law remains, with Christianity came new ceremonial laws and rites such as the Eucharists amongst other things, but the moral Law still stands and still is binding upon all Christian men. Judicial laws can no longer exist as there is no longer a Torah run state, and there are no longer High Priests (rabbis) apart from Jesus Himself.

    This is explained to us in the New Testament.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That is exactly word for word the logic used by suicide bombers and that is why it's not good to trust an old, mistranslated and misinterpreted book to give you your moral code

    Perhaps so, but then again that is more down to distortionism. As for mistranslations you'd need to clarify that with solid evidence from the Hebrew and the Greek. Anywhere in modern Bibles where there are contested meanings the alternatives are shown in the footnotes and if there are any they generally only involve a single word or a very minor difference between the main one in the text.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But why must it be god? throughout history many things have been attributed to god but as science has developed we have learned more and more about the world around us and fewer and fewer things have been put down to "I don't know so it must be god". I'd be fairly confident that in a few decades the exact genetic sequence that gives us our moral code will be pinpointed.

    I find it more difficult to believe that this could have possibly been a human invention. How could all human beings be in agreement in relation to a morality system or expect the other to have this same moral system in appealing to "you should know better" type logic if there was not a common source between the men and between mankind? Unless human beings are aware that there is a binding moral source higher than them involved in the process you would agree that it is rather futile.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Its source for me is evolution. As I said animals who treated each other well survived better than ones who killed each other. Simple as that

    So you are claiming that evolution in a sense formed the laws of nature. This doesn't tell me why this had to be the case for humans rather than animals though.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes we did. We also wrote the bible all on our own

    Nobody contests the fact that people wrote the Bible, what is the issue is is if it was the result of divine encounters or not. I personally believe that they were.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You not being able to see it does not mean there is a purpose. No evidence has ever been shown of any guiding force in our lives. Good people are punished and bad people are rewarded. There is no discernible pattern to it. You want there to be a purpose because it gives your life meaning but that doesn't mean there is one

    That's exactly the atheist mindset though. Don't worry about meanings, deal only with what science tells us and live your life. I can't do that and I won't do that. I believe there are differing forms of wisdom in the world than science, and yes I believe that God transcends science.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But if they follow this universal morality that is built into all of us, why is it necessary for them to also follow jesus christ? Is it not enough that they do unto others as they would have people do unto them? That idea existed long before JC and existed in places that were completely without his influence. It's just common sense and doesn't need divine guidance to be followed

    It's necessary for them to follow Christ to receive atonement for their past transgressions and to have a second chance to put themselves right before God who all will be before at the judgement. As for "before JC", Christians believe that Jesus existed before being born in human flesh.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That makes sense, the universal morality is binding on them because it's been built into them since creation. So why is any form of religion necessary if that is the case? Should our sub conscious not be leading us on the right path whether we read the refresher course or not?

    I've said this before. It's not about being necessary or not necessary in every case. It's about realising what is, and aiming to know and understand it on a deeper level. I trust that God knows what is best for me to do or not to do. I'm not claiming I have a full understanding of this yet, I want to seek it and understand it as I grow in my faith and trust in Him though.

    As for subconsciousness, I don't think that would have any bearing surely. We need to bring ourselves and to review ourselves, see what we are doing wrong as people and see how we can improve that in the future to become better people. This constant need of review and reformation, is a helpful way for us to become morally responsible creatures as we were intended to be for eachother in a global and local community.


  • #58
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, the Bible is consistent

    The bible is not consistent. That statement is provably wrong. Just google "bible contradictions" to see a big list of them. If you can't accept that then you're just ignoring evidence right in front of your eyes.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Perhaps so, but then again that is more down to distortionism.
    Is it distortism? There's a load of bad stuff in the old testament. And of course my argument here isn't specifically against Christianity, it's against the idea of trusting your moral guidance to a "higher power". You have to trust that the higher power is correct which he may very well not be.

    Basically, when you override your own judgement because a priest or whatever tells you its god's will and you trust god, you're getting into dangerous territory.

    Also, what makes you so sure that your particular god and your particular holy book are the right one? If you'd been born in Iran you'd most likely believe just as strongly in Allah. Why this god of all gods?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I find it more difficult to believe that this could have possibly been a human invention. How could all human beings be in agreement in relation to a morality system or expect the other to have this same moral system in appealing to "you should know better" type logic if there was not a common source between the men and between mankind? Unless human beings are aware that there is a binding moral source higher than them involved in the process you would agree that it is rather futile.
    Ah but you see there was a common source. When you go back far enough all life came from a common source. Our brains are programmed to work in a certain way. We can understand each other's facial expressions, we can speak to each other, we can empathise with each other and comfort each other and yes we have a common basic way of thinking because we are all of the same species. Society also dictates certain behaviours that we learn. We are social animals and we're wired to work together

    Finding it difficult to believe that we might have a common moral code without a god to put it in us makes no more sense than finding it difficult to believe that that we all have feet or that chinese people have chinese children. It's in our genes, we're programmed that way
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you are claiming that evolution in a sense formed the laws of nature. This doesn't tell me why this had to be the case for humans rather than animals though.
    Evolution is random. There is no "why". We just happened to get it and they didn't. Also, humans are animals, just ones slightly further along the evolutionary path
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nobody contests the fact that people wrote the Bible, what is the issue is is if it was the result of divine encounters or not. I personally believe that they were.
    that's why I said we wrote it all on our own ;)
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's necessary for them to follow Christ to receive atonement for their past transgressions and to have a second chance to put themselves right before God who all will be before at the judgement. As for "before JC", Christians believe that Jesus existed before being born in human flesh.
    That is of course contingent on christ existing and there being judgement and an after life. My question was why is religion necessary in order for someone to behave morally. Also, that is an entirely selfish reason for behaving morally
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for subconsciousness, I don't think that would have any bearing surely. We need to bring ourselves and to review ourselves, see what we are doing wrong as people and see how we can improve that in the future to become better people. This constant need of review and reformation, is a helpful way for us to become morally responsible creatures as we were intended to be for eachother in a global and local community.

    when I say sub consciously, I'm talking about universal morality. It's not something we decide to have, it's just built into us and it guides our decision making process. People with a faulty one become murderers etc whether they believe in god or not


  • #59
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The bible is not consistent. That statement is provably wrong. Just google "bible contradictions" to see a big list of them. If you can't accept that then you're just ignoring evidence right in front of your eyes.

    It's consistent if you can see that there is a progression in divine revelation from the first revelations to the patriarchs and to Moses, down to Jesus Christ, and if you read the prophetic books, you will see that there is a rather clear link between the development from OT understanding of God to NT. It's not a sudden leap by any means, but rather a single revelation.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »

    Is it distortism? There's a load of bad stuff in the old testament. And of course my argument here isn't specifically against Christianity, it's against the idea of trusting your moral guidance to a "higher power". You have to trust that the higher power is correct which he may very well not be.

    Yes it is. If you distort the true meaning of something to kill others, you are nothing other than a distortionist.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Basically, when you override your own judgement because a priest or whatever tells you its god's will and you trust god, you're getting into dangerous territory.

    I've judged that God is the lawgiver, and that God knows best for us. That is my own judgement, I've chosen to accept Christianity for myself.

    As for just listening to a priest. No, that isn't in any case a part of my faith. I'd tell anyone, listen to the priest on the pulpit, but check him out for yourself. I'm inspired by the Protestant Reformation when people were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves for the first time.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, what makes you so sure that your particular god and your particular holy book are the right one? If you'd been born in Iran you'd most likely believe just as strongly in Allah. Why this god of all gods?

    Personal experience, archaeological records that back up Biblical events, geological records that back up Biblical events (scholars agree that an event similar if not identical to the Biblical event at Sodom and Gomorrah happened), amongst the Bible holding up in terms of authenticity when questioned, and many other things auger quite well for the Biblical text as a whole. I've also read sections of the Qur'an so it's interesting you brought up Allah.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ah but you see there was a common source. When you go back far enough all life came from a common source. Our brains are programmed to work in a certain way. We can understand each other's facial expressions, we can speak to each other, we can empathise with each other and comfort each other and yes we have a common basic way of thinking because we are all of the same species. Society also dictates certain behaviours that we learn. We are social animals and we're wired to work together

    Yes, I attribute God as the common source.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Finding it difficult to believe that we might have a common moral code without a god to put it in us makes no more sense than finding it difficult to believe that that we all have feet or that chinese people have chinese children. It's in our genes, we're programmed that way

    This depends on whether or not evolution could have taken place without a creator. I find this improbable at best, considering the odds of the chemical state being correct, and the planets being in the correct alignment after the Big Bang is highly highly unlikely. We're very lucky to be alive, many athiests tend to forget this.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That is of course contingent on christ existing and there being judgement and an after life. My question was why is religion necessary in order for someone to behave morally. Also, that is an entirely selfish reason for behaving morally

    Not really considering the primary rationale is to serve God and to serve ones neighbour.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    when I say sub consciously, I'm talking about universal morality. It's not something we decide to have, it's just built into us and it guides our decision making process. People with a faulty one become murderers etc whether they believe in god or not

    Yes, I fail to understand what this has to do with people falling out of the universal moral code.


  • #60
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    I don't want to have sex with gay men, but I do with non-gay women. Does that make me a homophobe because I treat them differently? That I don't want to have sex with men make me a mysandrist?

    You know what I meant by that. I was referring specifically to treating them negatively, or differently before the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    You know what I meant by that. I was referring specifically to treating them negatively, or differently before the law.
    Is treating someone negatively, or differently before the law always bad?


  • #62
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's consistent if you can see that there is a progression in divine revelation from the first revelations to the patriarchs and to Moses, down to Jesus Christ, and if you read the prophetic books, you will see that there is a rather clear link between the development from OT understanding of God to NT. It's not a sudden leap by any means, but rather a single revelation.
    It's not consistent and I can prove it's not simply by giving you this link:
    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=bible+contradictions&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    If you can't accept that then it's not a case of you believing despite lack of evidence, it's a case of you believing despite ample evidence to the contrary. Reminds me of the phrase "there are none so blind as those that will not see"
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes it is. If you distort the true meaning of something to kill others, you are nothing other than a distortionist.
    Yes absolutely, if you distort the true meaning of something to kill others, you are nothing other than a distortionist. My question was whether or not they are actually distorting the true meaning of it. You focus on the later parts because you see Jesus as overruling the early violent parts but not everyone sees it that way.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've judged that God is the lawgiver, and that God knows best for us. That is my own judgement, I've chosen to accept Christianity for myself.

    As for just listening to a priest. No, that isn't in any case a part of my faith. I'd tell anyone, listen to the priest on the pulpit, but check him out for yourself. I'm inspired by the Protestant Reformation when people were encouraged to read the Bible for themselves for the first time.
    You personally wouldn't take the word of a priest but many millions would. In Ireland the priest was the most powerful man in town until the 70s. With the bible, that is where the danger comes in.

    Also, in the case of christianity it might be necessary for someone to misinterpret the book in order to make people do bad things but that's not necessarily true of all holy books. Once you believe a book is perfect truth, rationality goes out the window. What happens if you're wrong?

    I can see your point, if the bible was given to us by god then it is perfect and following it will lead you down the right path. Unfortunately god doesn't exist, the bible is not perfect and neither are any of the other holy books that are currently being used as the basis for people flying planes into buildings. They believed that what they had learned was perfect unquestionable truth but they were wrong and we all paid the price
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Personal experience, archaeological records that back up Biblical events, geological records that back up Biblical events (scholars agree that an event similar if not identical to the Biblical event at Sodom and Gomorrah happened), amongst the Bible holding up in terms of authenticity when questioned, and many other things auger quite well for the Biblical text as a whole. I've also read sections of the Qur'an so it's interesting you brought up Allah.
    Being based on places and people that actually existed doesn't prove anything tbh. For example Sodom and Gomorrah were probably destroyed in an earthquake and just like you do with evolution today, they didn't understand it so they attributed to god. Had it happened today scientists would have come in and pointed out the fault line the cities had been built on
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes, I attribute God as the common source.
    Each to their own I suppose. But if everyone thought like that we'd still be drilling holes in people's heads to let the evil spirits out.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This depends on whether or not evolution could have taken place without a creator. I find this improbable at best, considering the odds of the chemical state being correct, and the planets being in the correct alignment after the Big Bang is highly highly unlikely. We're very lucky to be alive, many athiests tend to forget this.
    Yes we are very lucky to be alive, extraordinarily lucky. It is extremely improbable for life to have evolved. What happened was the universe was around for thousands of billions of years and after all that time a sun formed in just the right way for the planet earth to form. Trillions of suns had formed previously that hadn't formed planets around it.

    Then on this planet volcanic activity moved all the raw materials around until 100 billion years later just the right ingredients for the first amino acid ended up in a pool together. And they got sloshed around for another billion years until they mixed together in just the right way. Then that amino acid got destroyed and it was another billion years until another one formed which didn't get destroyed and it mixed with the first protein.

    Fast forward to the first fish coming out of the sea. Normal fish had a mutant son that had lungs which were useless to it. It died, then another few thousand had mutant sons until one learned that these useless lungs could breathe above the water. Then as soon as it came out of the water it got squashed by a rock and it took another few thousand mutant fish before one came out and survived long enough to give birth. Etc etc etc, I think you get the idea.

    Evolution is extremely improbable but theists can't grasp the immenseness of the universe in how big it is and how long it has existed. It wasn't just a case of life evolving, life almost evolved 100000000000000000000000000 times before conditions were exactly right for it not be be snuffed out

    Think of it like flowers that pollinate by shooting out pollen. When you think of a single piece of pollen making it all the way to the stamen of another flower miles away you think it's highly improbable, until you remember that the flower shoots out 20,000,000 of these things, 19,999,999 of which don't go anywhere. But that one lucky one makes it to its destination. And of course far more often none of the pollen makes it to its destination and that species goes extinct

    So life is the result of trillions and trillions of failed attempts

    On a side note, you say evolution is highly improbable. But god is impossible. You say it yourself when you say he transcends science. When I have to choose between the highly improbable and the impossible, I choose the improbable. God is far less likely than evolution and yet you choose that. I can't understand the logic tbh. Your own logic about why you reject evolution can be applied far more appropriately to your own argument
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Not really considering the primary rationale is to serve God and to serve ones neighbour.
    You don't seem to be understanding my question. I asked you why is god necessary to behave as a moral person, eg given the opportunity to steal something why would the atheist steal it but the theist not. What happens after life is irrelevant to the question.

    And the reason you gave for being moral is that you will be judged afterwards. That is a selfish reason. You do good because it will come back to bite you otherwise
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes, I fail to understand what this has to do with people falling out of the universal moral code.

    What? I didn't say it did. I honestly don't know what you mean here


  • #63
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's not consistent and I can prove it's not simply by giving you this link:
    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=bible+contradictions&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

    And most of those links come from atheists in a lot of cases claiming contradiction when there are little actually there. As I say if you read the Bible as a single revelation from beginning to end, it is actually explained in the New Testament which laws are retained in Christianity, and what is God's relationship with us as Gentiles (non-Jews) in order to serve Him. The questions you raised based on dietary laws and other ceremonial laws of the Torah are actually already answered for you in the Bible itself. If we consider the days of the patriarchs to be the beginning of the revelation process, and the days of the Apostles and Christ to be the end it actually makes much more sense.

    There are several passages in the New Testament explaining the Jewish law and what it means for Christians, so there is really no excuse for those who claim that the Biblical stance is unclear.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If you can't accept that then it's not a case of you believing despite lack of evidence, it's a case of you believing despite ample evidence to the contrary.

    Of course I'm not going to accept that as there is rather strong indication that God exists, and it's more probable in my assessment that God exists rather than not.

    There is a difference between:
    1) Evidence by indication - Things that suggest that something may well have happened.

    2) Evidence by proof - Something that shows without a doubt that something happened.

    Christianity or atheism cannot provide 2. However Christians have and do provide 1 on a constant basis. You should really consult the wide array of Christian apologetics that has come to be on the subject. Particularly C.S Lewis, Lee Strobel and Allister McGrath's work would be a good start.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes absolutely, if you distort the true meaning of something to kill others, you are nothing other than a distortionist. My question was whether or not they are actually distorting the true meaning of it. You focus on the later parts because you see Jesus as overruling the early violent parts but not everyone sees it that way.

    "Early violent parts"? Do you mean God's punishment on people who sinned against Him in the Torah when the Israelites were conquesting the land or God's judgement on Israel after they fell away from Him? If anyone has the right to carry out this judgement it is God. We will still be judged at the end of time for our sins. This hasn't changed.

    We are told in New Testament Scripture that we were deserving of death for our sins, but it is because we have received the grace of Christ that we are given this new change to put ourselves right before Him. This doesn't mean that previous judgements of God weren't justified.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You personally wouldn't take the word of a priest but many millions would. In Ireland the priest was the most powerful man in town until the 70s. And that is where the danger comes in.

    Of course I wouldn't and if they do they need to be told to be vigilent and be ready to take anyone into account for what they say. The pastor / priest isn't the final authority, but the text itself is. I agree with you entirely that it is where the danger comes in, and this is why the pre-Reformation church got away with selling indulgences even when the concept is particularly condemned in Acts ch 8, amongst other things.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, in the case of christianity it might be necessary for someone to misinterpret the book in order to make people do bad things but that's not necessarily true of all holy books. Once you believe a book is perfect truth, rationality goes out the window. What happens if you're wrong?

    I'm not here to speak for any other faith apart from Christianity. I don't think that is my place to do. As for what happens if I am wrong? This seems to be a question prodded towards a fideist point of view to say ah well, if I'm wrong it's not a loss to me. I don't particularly like that logic, I'm convinced through my encounters with other Christians, and empiricism I have gathered through my own religious experiences to suggest that this is true. However, when archaeology, history, biblical authenticity, geological events, philosophical arguments for God's existence seem to hold up very well in addition to this it really does auger well for the Biblical account being correct.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I can see your point, if the bible was given to us by god then it is perfect and following it will lead you down the right path. Unfortunately god doesn't exist, the bible is not perfect and neither are any of the other holy books that are currently being used as the basis for people flying planes into buildings. They believed that what they had learned was perfect unquestionable truth but they were wrong and we all paid the price

    Unfortunately God doesn't exist? Where does your objective evidence come from for that? The same applies to your claims about the Bible, and other holy books. What indication even do you have to suggest that this is true? I find it humorous when people say that Christians do not have any evidence for their point of view (even when they do give indications for it) and atheists expect us to let them off the hook when they make passing statements such as these? You must admit the same must also apply to you.

    As for paying the price for flying planes. Did we not also pay very heavily for the price of atheism with the atheistic based tyranny that was applied on religious people in Stalinist Russia, and in Hoxhas Albania? I could also include Hitler considering his rejection of God in private memoirs, and his government corruption of Christianity during WW2. Cornell University have also released data from the Nuremburg Trials with Nazi plans for the destruction of Christianity. If you are to say that violence based on faith is a reason to reject it I must also consider these abhorrent acts as a means of rejecting atheism?

    However it is clear that any reasonable person will not say that Hoxha, Stalin, or Hitler represent the current secular humanist movement, just as much as any reasonable person should be expected to say that Pope Urban II, amongst others who led the Crusades do not represent Christian teaching.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Being based on places and people that actually existed doesn't prove anything tbh. For example Sodom and Gomorrah were probably destroyed in an earthquake and just like you do with evolution today, they didn't understand it so they attributed to god. Had it happened today scientists would have come in and pointed out the fault line the cities had been built on

    It still reinforces that an event did take place on that day of a similar nature to what is described in the Bible if not exactly the same. It depends if you believe in a naturalistic world or not. I certainly don't, and I'd advise you to pick up C.S Lewis' Miracles for exactly why not. The creation of the world is consider mathematical impossibility, and the definition of natural is that it is something that can be frequently observed and witnessed. The creation most certainly cannot if it's possibility is in the millions of billions of zeroes all taken into account. It's a miracle that we are here.

    It poses a problem to the naturalist to suggest that given the probabilities that are before us for how we came here all taken into account, from the Big Bang, the placement of the planets, the chemical composition of the universe, right up to life coming from non-life (abiogenesis) even before we get into the evolutionary cycle itself.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Each to their own I suppose. But if everyone thought like that we'd still be drilling holes in people's heads to let the evil spirits out.

    Or we would be at least making Biblical morality known in society. Mind you I am still making it known to myself as I am relatively recent in terms of accepting Christianity as my own personal ideology (2 years).
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes we are very lucky to be alive, extraordinarily lucky. It is extremely improbable for life to have evolved. What happened was the universe was around for thousands of billions of years and after all that time a sun formed in just the right way for the planet earth to form. Trillions of suns had formed previously that hadn't formed planets around it.

    Indeed we are.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    On a side note, you say evolution is highly improbable. But god is impossible. You say it yourself when you say he transcends science. When I have to choose between the highly improbable and the impossible, I choose the improbable. God is far less likely than evolution and yet you choose that. I can't understand the logic tbh

    Woah, easy there. I didn't say evolution didn't take place. In my POV God may well have been involved in the evolutionary process. We got to be careful in understanding the Christian view of evolution. Many Christian scientists embrace it with open arms, and see the human genome as God's design for us as human beings. I'm leaning towards this understanding myself, though I admit I can never be entirely certain how life came into formation.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And the reason you gave for being moral is that you will be judged afterwards. That is a selfish reason. You do good because it will come back to bite you otherwise

    Not the reason, but one of the reasons. Things in life have consequences, yes. However, the primary understanding of being moral is this, we share this world with many many other things, and many other human beings. How are we meant to relate to eachother, how are we meant to deal with it. Also, how are people to be vindicated at the end of time for those who have transgressed these laws? It's rather similar to the system that is carried out in most countries today actually. You get punished for crimes yes, but that doesn't mean that I shouldn't act morally towards others out of my own conscience. Do you only act morally to stay out of jail? If no, then what use is the question you are asking me concerning punishment? It isn't the strongest atheist argument that is out there.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What? I didn't say it did. I honestly don't know what you mean here

    I'm confused about where the subconsciousness even comes in here.


  • #64
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Is treating someone negatively, or differently before the law always bad?

    Negatively, yes. Differently, it depends. In this case, differently is wrong because there is no reason to treat them differently.


  • #65
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    And most of those links come from atheists in a lot of cases claiming contradiction when there are little actually there.
    Who the evidence comes from is completely irrelevant, the fact is it has been shown. You have just displayed why religious belief is dangerous as I explain below
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course I'm not going to accept that as there is rather strong indication that God exists, and it's more probable in my assessment that God exists rather than not.

    There is a difference between:
    1) Evidence by indication - Things that suggest that something may well have happened.

    2) Evidence by proof - Something that shows without a doubt that something happened.
    Indication that something happened is not indication that god did it. When I say "if you can't accept that" I'm talking specifically about the contradictions in the bible that you just dismiss

    Jakkass wrote: »
    "Early violent parts"? Do you mean God's punishment on people who sinned against Him in the Torah when the Israelites were conquesting the land or God's judgement on Israel after they fell away from Him?
    No I don't mean any judgement from god because I don't think there has ever been any judgement from god because I don't believe that god exists. I'm talking about the violence of people against people that was condoned by the bible, such as stoning each other to death

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course I wouldn't and if they do they need to be told to be vigilent and be ready to take anyone into account for what they say. The pastor / priest isn't the final authority, but the text itself is. I agree with you entirely that it is where the danger comes in, and this is why the pre-Reformation church got away with selling indulgences even when the concept is particularly condemned in Acts ch 8, amongst other things.
    You say this is where the danger comes in and you're doing the thing that is dangerous. As explained below

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm not here to speak for any other faith apart from Christianity. I don't think that is my place to do. As for what happens if I am wrong? This seems to be a question prodded towards a fideist point of view to say ah well, if I'm wrong it's not a loss to me.
    No it's not about a fideist point of view. What I mean is, as far as you're concerned you hold the absolute truth of the universe in your hands when you hold the bible. I showed you unequivocal proof of contradictions in the bible and you just dismissed the proof as "coming from atheists". So my question is, what if what you hold in your hands isn't actually absolute truth?

    Is it not extremely dangerous to have a mindset that you are absolutely right and nothing will ever convince you otherwise, if there's any chance whatsoever that that is not the case? For your mindset to be safe, three things must be true:
    1. Your god must 100% definitely exist
    2. Your god must 100% definitely have had a hand in the bible
    3. Most importantly, your interpretation of his book must be 100% definitely correct

    If any one of those three things fails, you end up with people who are completely unshakable in their beliefs and it's just luck of the draw whether their beliefs are like yours, ie a benevolent god, or Fred Phelps or suicide bombers.

    And I'm sure you'll agree that not one of those things can be absolutely verified, therefore completely unshakable religious belief is a dangerous thing. Unlike secular people, religious people cannot be reasoned with because they have "absolute truth", whatever they think that truth may be

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Unfortunately God doesn't exist? Where does your objective evidence come from for that?
    I was trying to hammer home a point to you, that you might well be wrong in your beliefs so you should be open to people telling you your holy book might be wrong. Your rejection of the proof I gave you shows that you're not
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for paying the price for flying planes. Did we not also pay very heavily for the price of atheism with the atheistic based tyranny that was applied on religious people in Stalinist Russia, and in Hoxhas Albania? I could also include Hitler considering his rejection of God in private memoirs, and his government corruption of Christianity during WW2.
    Yes absolutely, people who are atheists are capable of committing terrible acts but in most cases they are not actually doing them in the name of atheism, they just happen to be atheists. And again, at least they don't think they hold a book of universal truth in their hands and if they are shown unequivocal proof that they are wrong, it is possible that they will accept it, unlike a religious person
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It still reinforces that an event did take place on that day of a similar nature to what is described in the Bible if not exactly the same. It depends if you believe in a naturalistic world or not. I certainly don't, and I'd advise you to pick up C.S Lewis' Miracles for exactly why not. The creation of the world is consider mathematical impossibility, and the definition of natural is that it is something that can be frequently observed and witnessed. The creation most certainly cannot if it's possibility is in the millions of billions of zeroes all taken into account. It's a miracle that we are here.
    I would never suggest that no events described in the bible ever happened, just that them being attributed to god was wrong.

    Maybe some people consider the creation of the world a mathematical impossibility but not everyone. In fact this is the first I have ever heard of anyone suggesting that it might be. Maybe we should ask Stephen Hawking if he thinks it is?

    As for so many zeros making it impossible, tell that to Dolores McNamara ;). She beat odds of millions to one. The odds of life may be 1000000000000000000000 to 1 but the universe has existed for 1000000000000000000000 years. In a universe of infinite space and infinite time, anything that is in any way possible is actually quite likely. Also, the odds of god existing are 0 because he is not compatible with the laws of physics. No matter how long the universe exists, that will not change

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Woah, easy there. I didn't say evolution didn't take place. In my POV God may well have been involved in the evolutionary process. We got to be careful in understanding the Christian view of evolution. Many Christian scientists embrace it with open arms, and see the human genome as God's design for us as human beings. I'm leaning towards this understanding myself, though I admit I can never be entirely certain how life came into formation.
    But the bible doesn't say evolution took place, it has its own version of creation that excludes evolution because he created Adam and Eve as fully formed humans. How can both be true?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Also, how are people to be vindicated at the end of time for those who have transgressed these laws?
    This actually gets back to the original point. As an atheist I don't believe that you are to be rewarded for moral behaviour or punished for bad behaviour. At the end of life you just rot in the ground. And that's why I believe an atheist who behaves morally is more moral than a christian doing the same thing. The christian believes that he will be rewarded for good behaviour by god but an atheist knows that he won't, and yet he does it anyway. An atheist behaving morally is a completely unselfish act but a christian doing the same is not.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm confused about where the subconsciousness even comes in here.
    I don't really know how to explain it any clearer so let's just leave that bit


  • #66
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Negatively, yes. Differently, it depends. In this case, differently is wrong because there is no reason to treat them differently.
    Define negatively.

    Also, can you be certain there is no reason to treat them differently?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Who the evidence comes from is completely irrelevant, the fact is it has been shown. You have just displayed why religious belief is dangerous as I explain below

    I think the matter is whether it is evidence at all. If you take the Bible as a single revelation it explains itself entirely, how Christians interpret the Old Testament and how Christians take the account of Jesus' life into account in their daily lives. I don't believe when one takes into account these things that it does contradict itself, but rather the Old Testament goes hand in hand in explaining the New.

    As for other contradictions that people deal with. Some say because some Gospel writers take some events in more detail than another that it is a contradition. I disagree with this first and foremost because due to the differences between people they are going to notice some things more than others.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Indication that something happened is not indication that god did it. When I say "if you can't accept that" I'm talking specifically about the contradictions in the bible that you just dismiss

    Indication that backs up the Biblical record is actually also an indication that God was behind it. The more indications that one gains of the Biblical record being true (or actually of any other event having taken place), the more probable it is that these things are far from a coincidence.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No I don't mean any judgement from god because I don't think there has ever been any judgement from god because I don't believe that god exists. I'm talking about the violence of people against people that was condoned by the bible, such as stoning each other to death

    We have a problem then. How about using this understanding then, the judgement that is told of the God that is portrayed by the Bible. We are told by Paul the Apostle also that our sins were deserving of death, but due to the grace we have received from God that we have a new chance to put ourselves right with God before the final days.

    Also "stoning eachother to death" isn't exactly how it happened. There was a court called the Sanhedrin in Jewish times who ruled on the Torah saying what was permitted and what was not. All charges that warranted this death penalty also required at minimum two witnesses who had observed the event taking place. I've already explained how Jesus' role of high priest influences this Torah understanding, as it is His ruling that is binding on Christians.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You say this is where the danger comes in and you're doing the thing that is dangerous. As explained below

    The danger comes in when you trust a pastor instead of searching the Bible yourself and seeing what is actually written there. I don't think I have done that yet so far.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No it's not about a fideist point of view. What I mean is, as far as you're concerned you hold the absolute truth of the universe in your hands when you hold the bible. I showed you unequivocal proof of contradictions in the bible and you just dismissed the proof as "coming from atheists". So my question is, what if what you hold in your hands isn't actually absolute truth?

    I dismissed the so called proof, because the Bible is actually consistent, it explains how the revelation developed from the Torah understanding right up to the New Covenant that we live under now. As I say if you read any of Paul's works such as the book of Romans this is all explained.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Is it not extremely dangerous to have a mindset that you are absolutely right and nothing will ever convince you otherwise, if there's any chance whatsoever that that is not the case? For your mindset to be safe, three things must be true:

    I don't believe that I am absolutely right, but I am convinced that the Bible rings true in my life and in the lives of other Christians. I'm actually willing to be corrected on my Biblical interpretation if it makes sense to do so. However I have no reason to question the authenticity of the Bible as it stands up quite strongly.

    I don't believe it is one bit dangerous to try and live my life according to a set of values that inspire me to aim to do my best for others and to leave the world a better place, no.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Your god must 100% definitely exist

    I consider it far more probable than not anyway.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And I'm sure you'll agree that not one of those things can be absolutely verified, therefore completely unshakable religious belief is a dangerous thing. Unlike secular people, religious people cannot be reasoned with because they have "absolute truth", whatever they think that truth may be

    Actually, I do believe that you can find God if you seek for Him with an open heart actually desiring to know of Him. This is precisely the reason that so many people don't because they actually in their hearts don't want God to exist.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I was trying to hammer home a point to you, that you might well be wrong in your beliefs so you should be open to people telling you your holy book might be wrong. Your rejection of the proof I gave you shows that you're not

    I don't consider it proof.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes absolutely, people who are atheists are capable of committing terrible acts but in most cases they are not actually doing them in the name of atheism, they just happen to be atheists. And again, at least they don't think they hold a book of universal truth in their hands and if they are shown unequivocal proof that they are wrong, it is possible that they will accept it, unlike a religious person

    This isn't true. Stalin and Hoxha suppressed religious belief, destroyed churches, so to rid the world of religion. Many faithful people were put to death in both countries. It was under the motivation of state atheism that these things happened. I'm not sure that is the case with the Nazis however.

    I think if we are without guidelines it's actually the worst, it only takes a look back to the horrors of the 20th century to see that.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Maybe some people consider the creation of the world a mathematical impossibility but not everyone. In fact this is the first I have ever heard of anyone suggesting that it might be. Maybe we should ask Stephen Hawking if he thinks it is?

    They are called physicists and mathematicians.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As for so many zeros making it impossible, tell that to Dolores McNamara ;). She beat odds of millions to one. The odds of life may be 1000000000000000000000 to 1 but the universe has existed for 1000000000000000000000 years. In a universe of infinite space and infinite time, anything that is in any way possible is actually quite likely. Also, the odds of god existing are 0 because he is not compatible with the laws of physics. No matter how long the universe exists, that will not change

    Millions to one is not the same by any stretch of the mind than millions of billions of zeroes. The first according to the odds of the second is practically dead certainty. This to me isn't a natural event, mind you it could be argued that the case of Dolores McNamara wasn't a natural event either but a supernatural one on a far far lesser scale than the creation of course.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But the bible doesn't say evolution took place, it has its own version of creation that excludes evolution because he created Adam and Eve as fully formed humans. How can both be true?

    This is assumption.

    The Hebrew word for "day" in the English translation is "yom". Now "yom" can also refer to a stage or time, or an age. However, even if you take the concept of a "day" in the Genesis 1 passage, there is no guarantee that this refers to a 24 hour day as we currently view it.

    There are also passages that cause me to think that Genesis 1 may allude to evolution, although I can never be certain that it does. This verse particularly seems that it might suggest it:
    Genesis 1:20 wrote:
    And God said, ‘Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the dome of the sky.’

    This sounds rather similar to the primordial soup that is associated with abiogenesis.

    I can never be certain of how life came into being, however I don't think that we should exclude any possibility from the Genesis 1 process.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This actually gets back to the original point. As an atheist I don't believe that you are to be rewarded for moral behaviour or punished for bad behaviour. At the end of life you just rot in the ground. And that's why I believe an atheist who behaves morally is more moral than a christian doing the same thing. The christian believes that he will be rewarded for good behaviour by god but an atheist knows that he won't, and yet he does it anyway. An atheist behaving morally is a completely unselfish act but a christian doing the same is not.

    I disagree with you, and it seems that you have disregarded my reasoning from the last post.

    If you are bound under a criminal justice system, do you do what is good to avoid being put in jail?

    I personally say no, because it is my duty to strive to do what is right in the world, and morality is about how best we can live with eachother in the world. It isn't about rewards, it's because I have been given a new chance to do what is right.

    Now if you say no, it means just because the Government can vindicate you for what you do wrong, it isn't your primary reason to do what is right. Now why is it so hard to comprehend when you put "God's judgement" instead of criminal justice system, and "God" instead of the government.


  • #68
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think the matter is whether it is evidence at all. If you take the Bible as a single revelation it explains itself entirely, how Christians interpret the Old Testament and how Christians take the account of Jesus' life into account in their daily lives. I don't believe when one takes into account these things that it does contradict itself, but rather the Old Testament goes hand in hand in explaining the New.
    The message of how you should live your life might be considered to be consistent if you look at it from a certain perspective but there are contradictions and factual errors in the bible. Denying that fact is ridiculous and shows exactly what's wrong with religious belief. I won't entertain you anymore on that topic until you go through the first page of the google search, take some sample contradictions and errors and explain how they are actually not. I was going to say you can't make a claim like that with nothing to back it up but then that's what religion's all about
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indication that backs up the Biblical record is actually also an indication that God was behind it. The more indications that one gains of the Biblical record being true (or actually of any other event having taken place), the more probable it is that these things are far from a coincidence.
    No it absolutely is not. For example:

    The book the Da Vince code was set in Paris and London. Those places exist therefore the book is a true story
    or
    There were a series of murders spanning ten years in Dublin. I find someone who lived in the area for that time and write down in a book that he did it. Therefore he did it

    Do you see a flaw in the logic there somewhere? By your logic I could make up any old bullsh!t that fits the basic elements of a true event, write it down in a book and have people believe me

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Also "stoning eachother to death" isn't exactly how it happened. There was a court called the Sanhedrin in Jewish times who ruled on the Torah saying what was permitted and what was not. All charges that warranted this death penalty also required at minimum two witnesses who had observed the event taking place. I've already explained how Jesus' role of high priest influences this Torah understanding, as it is His ruling that is binding on Christians.
    Regardless of the exact circumstances, people were stoned to death and much more violence and general wrongness was condoned by the bible, eg slavery
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The danger comes in when you trust a pastor instead of searching the Bible yourself and seeing what is actually written there. I don't think I have done that yet so far.
    I'd take a different view. If I wanted to learn about astro physics I wouldn't just pick up a book and read it because I'd be almost certain to interpret something wrong. Instead I'd enlist the help of someone with knowledge of astro physics. It is possible that this person will also misinterpret it but reading it myself is no more a guarantee. For example I'm sure Fred Phelps read the bible himself
    Jakkass wrote: »
    However I have no reason to question the authenticity of the Bible as it stands up quite strongly.
    Ignoring the multitude of compelling reasons including the reasons I gave you because they don't fit with what you want to be true is not the same as having no reason.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I consider it far more probable than not anyway.
    I'm confused as to how you consider the formation of the earth a mathematical impossibility simply because it's unlikely and yet consider the existence of God "probable" despite the fact that his existence actually is impossible, as you said yourself (transcends science)
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't consider it proof.
    why not? Because you don't want it to be? The evidence is there whether you choose to acknowledge it or not
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This isn't true. Stalin and Hoxha suppressed religious belief, destroyed churches, so to rid the world of religion. Many faithful people were put to death in both countries. It was under the motivation of state atheism that these things happened. I'm not sure that is the case with the Nazis however.
    I never said that atheists don't do bad things, in fact I said the exact opposite. My point was that an atheist can be reasoned with because his beliefs don't come from an unquestionable higher power
    Jakkass wrote: »
    They are called physicists and mathematicians.
    Evolution and the formation of the earth are pretty much accepted as fact by science today except for a few who have a religious agenda so I think it's safe to ignore these pseudo-physicists.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Millions to one is not the same by any stretch of the mind than millions of billions of zeroes. The first according to the odds of the second is practically dead certainty. This to me isn't a natural event, mind you it could be argued that the case of Dolores McNamara wasn't a natural event either but a supernatural one on a far far lesser scale than the creation of course.
    Think of it this way. If I stood 40 metres from a dart board and threw a dart, it's extremely unlikely that I'd hit the bullseye. It's safe to say I'd have no chance of hitting it. However, if I threw a dart every 3 seconds for the rest of my natural life, it's almost certain that I would hit the bullseye at least once, probably many times. And the universe has been around a lot longer than 80 years. That's how these unlikely things happend and you'll just have to wrap your head around it. There's nothing miraculous about it
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Hebrew word for "day" in the English translation is "yom". Now "yom" can also refer to a stage or time, or an age. However, even if you take the concept of a "day" in the Genesis 1 passage, there is no guarantee that this refers to a 24 hour day as we currently view it.

    There are also passages that cause me to think that Genesis 1 may allude to evolution, although I can never be certain that it does. This verse particularly seems that it might suggest it:
    So up until Charles Darwin every single christian had been interpreting the bible wrong!?!?!?? :eek:

    Millions, if not billions of people were using this book as the main guiding force in their lives and it had been interpreted wrong?? Sounds to me like anything could have happened that way.....
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I disagree with you, and it seems that you have disregarded my reasoning from the last post.

    If you are bound under a criminal justice system, do you do what is good to avoid being put in jail?

    I personally say no, because it is my duty to strive to do what is right in the world, and morality is about how best we can live with eachother in the world. It isn't about rewards, it's because I have been given a new chance to do what is right.

    Now if you say no, it means just because the Government can vindicate you for what you do wrong, it isn't your primary reason to do what is right. Now why is it so hard to comprehend when you put "God's judgement" instead of criminal justice system, and "God" instead of the government.
    Firstly, I think you're using the word vindicate wrong. Vindicate means to clear of accusation, blame or suspicion.

    Now, I think I see what you're saying. The threat of punishment isn't my primary reason for doing right and it's not yours either. Agreed

    It may not be the primary reason but it is still in the back of your mind when you're making the decision. On some level you believe that you will be rewarded for good behaviour and punished for bad by god. I don't believe that. I believe that if I do good and no one finds out I will never be rewarded and if I get away with doing bad I will never be punished. That is why I believe a moral atheist is more moral. Also, I'm not specifically talking about things that would involve the criminal prosecution, I'm talking about any moral or immoral action

    Reward and punishment may not be a christian's primary reason but it is a reason nonetheless


  • #69
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No it absolutely is not. For example:
    The book the Da Vince code was set in Paris and London. Those places exist therefore the book is a true story
    or
    There were a series of murders spanning ten years in Dublin. I find someone who lived in the area for that time and write down in a book that he did it. Therefore he did it
    Do you see a flaw in the logic there somewhere? By your logic I could make up any old bullsh!t that fits the basic elements of a true event, write it down in a book and have people believe me
    That isn't what I said. I said the more indications (not just one like you have cited here) you get that indicate the Biblical record is indeed true, the more probable it is to have taken place. It's rather simple, and there are several fronts where this has actually happened. Not just one, or two may I add.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Regardless of the exact circumstances, people were stoned to death and much more violence and general wrongness was condoned by the bible, eg slavery
    Problem of taking the Bible out of context again. Slavery in the Bible is a rather different thing to slavery of the colonial era, in the Torah infact the slaves were to be given certain rights that slaves wouldn't have had anywhere in the world at that time, such as conjugal rights to marry, not to have to labour on Shabbat, and even in other elements of Torah law to have the right to flee their masters to be emancipated should abuse have taken place. Also, if one incurred injuries they had a right under the Law of Moses to not be under their employers any longer.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ignoring the multitude of compelling reasons including the reasons I gave you because they don't fit with what you want to be true is not the same as having no reason.
    I haven't ignored them, and I'm not going to be goaded by you into accepting them if it doesn't make clear sense to me. I'm not in the mood to make this personal.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I'm confused as to how you consider the formation of the earth a mathematical impossibility simply because it's unlikely and yet consider the existence of God "probable" despite the fact that his existence actually is impossible, as you said yourself (transcends science)
    It's rather simple really.
    According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 to 1.
    Penrose is a contemporary of Stephen Hawking, and this figure is the likelihood of mankind coming into existence by coincidence.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    why not? Because you don't want it to be? The evidence is there whether you choose to acknowledge it or not
    Again, I'm not going to be goaded into accepting your view just because you claim that this is evidence. I don't consider it evidence because the Bible explains how the Old Testament is binding on Christians clearly in Paul's writings and in Jesus' words. If you want to research it, take out a Bible read the book of Romans and probably Matthew 5-7 for a good idea.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I never said that atheists don't do bad things, in fact I said the exact opposite. My point was that an atheist can be reasoned with because his beliefs don't come from an unquestionable higher power
    "reasoned" - You have given no reason why a theist can't do this. Again different sources of empiricism, both reason. Rationality is only a tiny piece of knowledge and it only happens based on source data, so your view isn't making much sense.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Evolution and the formation of the earth are pretty much accepted as fact by science today except for a few who have a religious agenda so I think it's safe to ignore these pseudo-physicists.
    I didn't deny evolution at all in this thread so please don't strawman my points. I believe that God could well have carried out the evolutionary order, but it is in mathematical impossibility (which is the term for extremely improbable in mathematics and physics), and I've already explained to you that Penrose is a mainstream British mathematician and contemporary of Stephen Hawking.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So up until Charles Darwin every single christian had been interpreting the bible wrong!?!?!??
    No, Augustine of Hippo and Origen of Jerusalem had viewed the Creation as taking place over a longer period since around the 4th century AD, so it's nothing modern.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Millions, if not billions of people were using this book as the main guiding force in their lives and it had been interpreted wrong?? Sounds to me like anything could have happened that way.....
    I'm not claiming that other views on Genesis 1 are wrong actually. I can never be entirely sure as to how we were put here and I think it's a bit presumptuous for anyone to say that. However I think God could have been behind the evolutionary process.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Firstly, I think you're using the word vindicate wrong. Vindicate means to clear of accusation, blame or suspicion.
    Really?
    To exact revenge for; avenge.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Now, I think I see what you're saying. The threat of punishment isn't my primary reason for doing right and it's not yours either. Agreed
    Good good.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It may not be the primary reason but it is still in the back of your mind when you're making the decision. On some level you believe that you will be rewarded for good behaviour and punished for bad by god. I don't believe that. I believe that if I do good and no one finds out I will never be rewarded and if I get away with doing bad I will never be punished. That is why I believe a moral atheist is more moral. Also, I'm not specifically talking about things that would involve the criminal prosecution, I'm talking about any moral or immoral action
    How do you know that this is in the back of my mind? Is going to jail in the back of your mind when you are thinking about what you do? Perhaps, but I don't think what you are raising is any more relevant in the case of the afterlife.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Reward and punishment may not be a christian's primary reason but it is a reason nonetheless
    Yes but I'm yet to see how it makes Christians any more selfish. It could also be argued that not being accountable to anyone would also make one selfish.


  • #70
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    That isn't what I said. I said the more indications (not just one like you have cited here) you get that indicate the Biblical record is indeed true, the more probable it is to have taken place. It's rather simple, and there are several fronts where this has actually happened. Not just one, or two may I add.
    Again, proof that events similar to these occurred are not proof that god was involved or that anything miraculous happened. The absolute most that proves is that someone wrote down that miraculous events occurred most likely because, just like you with the creation of the world, they mistook it for miraculous when it was in fact not.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Problem of taking the Bible out of context again. Slavery in the Bible is a rather different thing to slavery of the colonial era, in the Torah infact the slaves were to be given certain rights that slaves wouldn't have had anywhere in the world at that time, such as conjugal rights to marry, not to have to labour on Shabbat, and even in other elements of Torah law to have the right to flee their masters to be emancipated should abuse have taken place. Also, if one incurred injuries they had a right under the Law of Moses to not be under their employers any longer.
    Tiny little details such as exactly how a slave was treated are irrelevant. It is a fact that there are things that are condoned in the bible which are not considered moral today.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I haven't ignored them, and I'm not going to be goaded by you into accepting them if it doesn't make clear sense to me. I'm not in the mood to make this personal.

    How do you know it doesn't make sense to you when you refuse to even look lest your eyes be opened? I'm not asking you to accept them, I'm just asking you to look at them and decide for yourself.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Again, I'm not going to be goaded into accepting your view just because you claim that this is evidence. I don't consider it evidence because the Bible explains how the Old Testament is binding on Christians clearly in Paul's writings and in Jesus' words
    So you won't even look at cold hard evidence that is presented to you because the old testament says the evidence is wrong and it's binding on you. Thank you for proving my point.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's rather simple really.
    According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10 to the power of 123 to 1.
    Penrose is a contemporary of Stephen Hawking, and this figure is the likelihood of mankind coming into existence by coincidence.
    Penrose is a contemporary of Stephen Hawking, and this figure is the likelihood of mankind coming into existence by coincidence.
    you are choosing something that is physically impossible, ie odds of exactly 0 over something that is very unlikely. That does not make sense.

    Also, as I've already explained 3 times, in a universe of infinite space and infinite time, something with odds of 10^123 to 1 is pretty much a certainty.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    "reasoned" - You have given no reason why a theist can't do this. Again different sources of empiricism, both reason. Rationality is only a tiny piece of knowledge and it only happens based on source data, so your view isn't making much sense.
    I actually have given a reason. I tell you something is wrong but your holy book says it's not. As a christian you choose the holy book. You are doing it right now by refusing to even look at the evidence I have given you because it disagrees with your holy book

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I didn't deny evolution at all in this thread so please don't strawman my points. I believe that God could well have carried out the evolutionary order, but it is in mathematical impossibility (which is the term for extremely improbable in mathematics and physics), and I've already explained to you that Penrose is a mainstream British mathematician and contemporary of Stephen Hawking.
    well then the term mathematical impossibility needs to be updated or more likely, your understanding of it needs to be updated. God, on the other hand, is actually a mathematical impossibility

    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, Augustine of Hippo and Origen of Jerusalem had viewed the Creation as taking place over a longer period since around the 4th century AD, so it's nothing modern.
    Again, tiny little details like the period of time it took are irrelevant. The bible does not describe evolution, full stop and if it does, it has been interpreted wrong, proving my point that it should not be taken as absolute truth because no one's quite sure what it's even saying
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Really?
    To exact revenge for; avenge.
    I was unaware that there was an old biblical version of the word. It actually is on this page:
    http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:vindicate&ei=Gwy0SYXcENOw-AbTtcHzAg&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title
    as number 17 with a single biblical reference to it being used in that context. And in the various translations of that verse:
    http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=isa&chapter=34&verse=8
    only one of them actually uses the word and it doesn't appear to be used in that context at all but refers to vindicating zion in the way we would normally use the word. Let's use the 21st century definition thanks very much, which is to clear someone of a crime.

    You see what I did there? you told me I was wrong so I went out and researched it and built a case. I didn't simply say "my book says you're wrong, therefore you're wrong"

    Jakkass wrote: »
    How do you know that this is in the back of my mind?
    It's in the back of your mind because it's one of the core principles of your belief system :confused:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Yes but I'm yet to see how it makes Christians any more selfish.
    See the previous two posts where I already explained it, including the one that you just quoted
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It could also be argued that not being accountable to anyone would also make one selfish.

    You've missed the point by quite a large margin there. you say that not being accountable might make one selfish. But evidence has shown this not to be the case. My whole point was that god is not necessary to be moral because atheists generally behave morally even without the threat of punishment. I was referring to an atheist and a christian both behaving morally and that one is more moral than the other, not that either one would be more inclined to behave immorally

    So no, you couldn't argue that not being accountable would make one selfish because that would completely miss the point`


  • #71
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again, proof that events similar to these occurred are not proof that god was involved or that anything miraculous happened. The absolute most that proves is that someone wrote down that miraculous events occurred most likely because, just like you with the creation of the world, they mistook it for miraculous when it was in fact not.

    It serves to the authenticity of the Biblical text.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Tiny little details such as exactly how a slave was treated are irrelevant. It is a fact that there are things that are condoned in the bible which are not considered moral today.

    You argue the Torah advocates mistreatment, I advocate it doesn't. So of course it's crucial. I would recommend reading this article by Chabad a Jewish orthodox group which explains it adequately:
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/305549/jewish/Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    How do you know it doesn't make sense to you when you refuse to even look lest your eyes be opened? I'm not asking you to accept them, I'm just asking you to look at them and decide for yourself.

    That's really funny, I'd ask you the same question about Christianity. However lets go on with this:

    I've seen these so called lists of contradictions before, I've had other atheists quote them at me, and many of the ones I read weren't contradictions at all on a second look. Such as one gospel writer recording that he saw one angel at the tomb and another seeing two. That doesn't automatically constitute a contradiction, it could merely mean that one saw one and another saw two.

    Richard Dawkins in the God Delusion also does this in relation to the Gospel of John where a group of Jews ask where Jesus was born, some say that he was from Galilee and surely that the Messiah was not from Galilee (John 7:41) and Dawkins claims because this group of Jews were arguing about Jesus' birthplace that Jesus could not have been born in Bethlehem of Judea as in (Matthew 1, and Luke 1). However this doesn't make sense, just because a crowd of people who had not known Jesus even as a child and had followed Him there doubted that He was born in Bethlehem doesn't mean that He wasn't. Yet Dawkins takes this as certainty.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    So you won't even look at cold hard evidence that is presented to you because the old testament says the evidence is wrong and it's binding on you. Thank you for proving my point.

    Is it evidence though? I've asked you this several times, and you just go and ignore my question and say that I refuse to accept it. I refuse to accept it without good reason.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, as I've already explained 3 times, in a universe of infinite space and infinite time, something with odds of 10^123 to 1 is pretty much a certainty.

    The universe is only a finite length old surely? I thought the universe in most common scientific definitions was 13 billion years old? So how can it be a infinite space and time if the universe has only been expanding for a finite length of time (13 bn years)?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I actually have given a reason. I tell you something is wrong but your holy book says it's not. As a christian you choose the holy book. You are doing it right now by refusing to even look at the evidence I have given you because it disagrees with your holy book

    We have yet to clarify this evidence though, and you've refused to do so instead resorting to suppression and claiming that I amn't listening to this evidence that has yet to be clarified.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    well then the term mathematical impossibility needs to be updated or more likely, your understanding of it needs to be updated. God, on the other hand, is actually a mathematical impossibility

    Who says that God is a mathematical impossibility? We know that an unguided creation process is considered to be mathematical impossibility, so what is the opposite of an unguided creation process (which is seen to be more probable given this statement)? A guided one right? What guides an guided creation process? A guider. We could argue all day what this guider could be however, and that's probably the limitation in this viewpoint.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Again, tiny little details like the period of time it took are irrelevant. The bible does not describe evolution, full stop and if it does, it has been interpreted wrong, proving my point that it should not be taken as absolute truth because no one's quite sure what it's even saying

    It isn't a tiny detail though. You claimed that a certain view of creation had been held only since Darwin, I showed you that it was held by other thinkers beforehand. This is only the truth, and it's proper that I correct you if I can.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I was unaware that there was an old biblical version of the word. It actually is on this page....

    I actually got it off an online dictionary.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    See the previous two posts where I already explained it, including the one that you just quoted

    Part of Christianity is that you share your faith with others so that they may also live under the benefit of God's glory. That's hardly selfish. If I could bring the entire world to Christianity in a second, I would so that they could experience God's glory both here on earth and in the afterlife on the New Earth and in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21)
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You've missed the point by quite a large margin there. you say that not being accountable might make one selfish. But evidence has shown this not to be the case. My whole point was that god is not necessary to be moral because atheists generally behave morally even without the threat of punishment. I was referring to an atheist and a christian both behaving morally and that one is more moral than the other, not that either one would be more inclined to behave immorally

    There would be no guarantee that one wouldn't if they have no authority to live under. This is the kind of mindset that caused people like Stalin and Hoxha to emerge. Once God was wiped out of the equation, people could be God, they could elevate themselves to the highest most arrogant standards to do as they wished. Ideologies such as Nietzsches Ubermensch although are brilliant reads are quite terrifying in reality. As my philosophy lecturer said although Nietzsche may be one of the finest writers of the last 500 years even in translation, where his ideology is practiced there are mass graves left right and centre. I'm not saying that this is true in all cases but it has been a factor in the past.

    What moral standard do we aim to reach if we eliminate the Moral Standard itself.

    Also you claim that atheists are generally moral, but under what morality? If you believe in universal morality there can only be one ultimate source of morality that binds us all surely?


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It serves to the authenticity of the Biblical text.
    No it doesn't and saying it over and over again won't make that true.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    You argue the Torah advocates mistreatment, I advocate it doesn't. So of course it's crucial. I would recommend reading this article by Chabad a Jewish orthodox group which explains it adequately:
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/305549/jewish/Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm
    No I'm not reading it. I believe the bible condones things which we now consider immoral so I'm not going to read something which might suggest otherwise. Frustrating isn't it?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    That's really funny, I'd ask you the same question about Christianity.
    I've looked at the evidence for christianity. It doesn't take very long. In fact I condense it in the space after the following colon:

    There is evidence that certain events took place but no evidence whatsoever that there was ever any divine intervention. If there was, faith would no longer be necessary because we'd have proof
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've seen these so called lists of contradictions before, I've had other atheists quote them at me, and many of the ones I read weren't contradictions at all on a second look. Such as one gospel writer recording that he saw one angel at the tomb and another seeing two. That doesn't automatically constitute a contradiction, it could merely mean that one saw one and another saw two.
    Ok, you have personally interpreted that many of the contradictions weren't so (which doesn't mean you're right). Have you proved every single one of them wrong, as would be necessary for the bible to be absolute truth?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Is it evidence though? I've asked you this several times, and you just go and ignore my question and say that I refuse to accept it. I refuse to accept it without good reason.
    The fact that I keep calling it evidence is an answer to your question. Yes it is evidence. It quotes the relevant text and explains the contradiction or the error. That is how evidence works
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The universe is only a finite length old surely? I thought the universe in most common scientific definitions was 13 billion years old? So how can it be a infinite space and time if the universe has only been expanding for a finite length of time (13 bn years)?
    The universe has not yet existed for infinite time because that doesn't make sense but it will. And the current scientific evidence suggests that it is infinite in space. And the fact that it has only existed for 13 billion years in no way detracts from my point.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    We have yet to clarify this evidence though, and you've refused to do so instead resorting to suppression and claiming that I amn't listening to this evidence that has yet to be clarified.
    I have yet to clarify it!?!? It's on the first page of google when you search for the words "bible contradictions". There ya go, clarified.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Who says that God is a mathematical impossibility?
    You did when you said he transcends science.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It isn't a tiny detail though. You claimed that a certain view of creation had been held only since Darwin, I showed you that it was held by other thinkers beforehand. This is only the truth, and it's proper that I correct you if I can.
    No, you didn't. you showed that some people thought it might have taken longer than 7 days. At no point did they ever mention DNA or monkeys

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Part of Christianity is that you share your faith with others so that they may also live under the benefit of God's glory. That's hardly selfish. If I could bring the entire world to Christianity in a second, I would so that they could experience God's glory both here on earth and in the afterlife on the New Earth and in New Jerusalem (Revelation 21)
    Missed the point entirely

    Jakkass wrote: »
    There would be no guarantee that one wouldn't if they have no authority to live under. This is the kind of mindset that caused people like Stalin and Hoxha to emerge. Once God was wiped out of the equation, people could be God, they could elevate themselves to the highest most arrogant standards to do as they wished. Ideologies such as Nietzsches Ubermensch although are brilliant reads are quite terrifying in reality. As my philosophy lecturer said although Nietzsche may be one of the finest writers of the last 500 years even in translation, where his ideology is practiced there are mass graves left right and centre. I'm not saying that this is true in all cases but it has been a factor in the past.
    You really have to stop saying that, you are completely missing the point. But I'll respond to it anyway.

    Of course there is no guarantee that an atheist would be moral if they have no authority to live under but having an authority to live under is no guarantee for a christian either as I'm sure you'll agree. There being a guarantee is irrelevant

    you say "once god was wiped out of the equation", as if no one who believes in God ever did anything wrong. Believing in god has never stopped insane despots doing wrong any more than not believing in god has allowed them to. Again, irrelevant
    Jakkass wrote: »
    What moral standard do we aim to reach if we eliminate the Moral Standard itself.

    Also you claim that atheists are generally moral, but under what morality? If you believe in universal morality there can only be one ultimate source of morality that binds us all surely?
    We haven't eliminated the moral standard. Morality existed long before the bible and existed completely independent of the bible. The bible is not the source of morality, it is simply one example of it written down.

    It brings us back to the idea of universal morality that we're all born with. This is what we follow and getting it from a book is completely unnecessary. Universal morality is quite basic, it's things like don't kill each other, don't steal etc etc. Essentially the ten commandments that Moses wrote down entirely on his own. There are variances in the higher levels from place to place but the same core exists in all of us, whether or not we've ever heard of the bible. In the real world, morality comes from society, not from a book and that's why even christians do things these days that are condemned by the bible.

    And again, to clarify, my point is simply that an atheist who behaves morally is more moral because he does not believe he will ever he rewarded by a higher power, therefore it is a completely unselfish act. Talking about atheists not acting morally is missing the point


  • #73
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No I'm not reading it. I believe the bible condones things which we now consider immoral so I'm not going to read something which might suggest otherwise. Frustrating isn't it?

    That's fine really, it's your choice whether you want to read it or not. I'm quite honestly not going to read something that basically involves nitpicking, when if one goes right through the Bible it explains how we get from the Torah which is the revelation of Moses to the Jewish people, right up to the Christian Gospels and Apostles. It's up to you if you want to know the role of slavery in the Bible and how it isn't the same thing as the colonial slavery you have in your mind. That's your call.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I've looked at the evidence for christianity. It doesn't take very long. In fact I condense it in the space after the following colon:

    I contend that you haven't and aren't interested, and that is your perogative.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You did when you said he transcends science.

    How exactly? Claims of God in many cases are metaphysical claims rather than scientific. Hence why we can only discuss about indications through science, archaeology, history, and so on. To truly experience God, one must come to Him with a open heart and be willing to accept that He may well be real, and want Him to impact your life. That's the only way that anyone will ever be convinced of the Gospel. It's only because of mental barriers and a hardened heart that most people don't believe in God, rather than intellectual difficulties in most cases.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    No, you didn't. you showed that some people thought it might have taken longer than 7 days. At no point did they ever mention DNA or monkeys

    Hence why the Bible is a book that deals with metaphysics, not science. Science urges us to ask the questions of how this happened, and the Bible urges us to ask questions of what our purpose is, of who we are, of how we should live and order our lives. In a book of metaphysics there is no need whatsoever to mention DNA or monkeys. I could mention several things that the Bible doesn't mention directly, such as computers, but this doesn't affect it's metaphysical claims in the slightest.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Missed the point entirely

    Of course I didn't. You claim that Christians are moral for personal benefit. How on earth would it be about personal benefit if the reason why Christians evangelise is so that other people may experience what they experience and have the benefit of eternal life? Doesn't sound too selfish to me at all, and infact is quite relevant to the point.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You really have to stop saying that, you are completely missing the point. But I'll respond to it anyway.

    Why? It's true, these people were motivated by atheism. It mightn't be pleasant to hear but it's true. Not all atheists are like this of course, but Stalin and Hoxha were on a mission to eradicate belief from Albania and Russia.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Of course there is no guarantee that an atheist would be moral if they have no authority to live under but having an authority to live under is no guarantee for a christian either as I'm sure you'll agree. There being a guarantee is irrelevant

    Certainly this is true. I concede this point.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you say "once god was wiped out of the equation", as if no one who believes in God ever did anything wrong. Believing in god has never stopped insane despots doing wrong any more than not believing in god has allowed them to. Again, irrelevant

    It was their motivation to do abhorrent things. I never at all suggested that not having a belief made this more or less likely. I'm just trying to make it clear that the corruption of atheism has resulted in horrible things much like the corruption of religion has. Therefore it is just as much an argument against atheism as theism.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    We haven't eliminated the moral standard. Morality existed long before the bible and existed completely independent of the bible. The bible is not the source of morality, it is simply one example of it written down.

    This isn't an argument against Christianity at all. Just because the text didn't exist doesn't mean that God hadn't held this as the ultimate morality source to eventually reveal to mankind. Paul in the piece from Romans 2 I quoted in the discussion a while back claimed that Gentiles who didn't know the law and still followed it were doing the same thing as those who knew the law and followed it.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It brings us back to the idea of universal morality that we're all born with. This is what we follow and getting it from a book is completely unnecessary. Universal morality is quite basic, it's things like don't kill each other, don't steal etc etc. Essentially the ten commandments that Moses wrote down entirely on his own. There are variances in the higher levels from place to place but the same core exists in all of us, whether or not we've ever heard of the bible. In the real world, morality comes from society, not from a book and that's why even christians do things these days that are condemned by the bible.

    I disagree with this entirely. People deviate from the universal morality hence why they are handed over to desires which are forbidden out of their own arrogance. As for the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20, Deuteronomy 5), there are a lot more than just these if you take into account other sections such as the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 - 7).
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And again, to clarify, my point is simply that an atheist who behaves morally is more moral because he does not believe he will ever he rewarded by a higher power, therefore it is a completely unselfish act. Talking about atheists not acting morally is missing the point

    This doesn't make sense because of what I said of Christian evangelism. It would only make sense if Christians followed these teachings and didn't want for others to also have these benefits. That is the most unselfish thing I could think of actually, to put yourself on the line where you may be ridiculed, or in some societies even killed for promoting this.


  • #74
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I contend that you haven't and aren't interested, and that is your perogative.

    you're absolutely right. I can't be bothered anymore. I'm out

    We can still agree on abortion though ;)


  • #75
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Negatively, yes. Differently, it depends. In this case, differently is wrong because there is no reason to treat them differently.
    What's the difference between negatively and differently then?


  • #76
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Define negatively.

    Also, can you be certain there is no reason to treat them differently?

    Negatively: To treat a straight person better than a gay one simply because they are straight.

    And I am quite certain. It is a legitimate question to ask, but the answer is there is no major difference. Specifically regarding this issue is the question of children, but after many studies it has been shown that there is no evidence that gays are better or worse than non gays at raising children.

    I can't think of a difference between negatively and differently right now; they're usually synonymous. Can you?


  • #77
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    I can't think of a difference between negatively and differently right now; they're usually synonymous. Can you?
    Negatively I would think would be differently but where one group is at a disadvantage to another. So in many European Kindergartens boys are dressed in blue and girls in pink - which is different, but neither has a disadvantage per say. However, with gay and straight couples and adoption, one group has a disadvantage for no reason other than being of that group. Would this be a fair definition?

    And by your logic, while differently may be acceptable, negatively never is - correct?


  • #78
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Negatively I would think would be differently but where one group is at a disadvantage to another. So in many European Kindergartens boys are dressed in blue and girls in pink - which is different, but neither has a disadvantage per say. However, with gay and straight couples and adoption, one group has a disadvantage for no reason other than being of that group. Would this be a fair definition?

    And by your logic, while differently may be acceptable, negatively never is - correct?

    Yep, quite a good one. And although I prefer to never say never, I'll say never this time.


  • #79
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Yep, quite a good one. And although I prefer to never say never, I'll say never this time.
    So it can be all right to discriminate against someone based solely upon their membership of a group of demographic in some circumstances?

    You seem to be a bit fuzzy on your reasoning.


  • #80
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    So it can be all right to discriminate against someone based solely upon their membership of a group of demographic in some circumstances?

    You seem to be a bit fuzzy on your reasoning.

    I felt fuzzy tbh, you're right. Not quite sure why I posted when I wasn't up to much. Too much ganja I guess.

    But I'm clear headed today, and I can safely say no, it isn't alright to discriminate.


  • #81
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    But I'm clear headed today, and I can safely say no, it isn't alright to discriminate.
    So you would then support the principle of male abortion then?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    from AH thread:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It isn't brainwashing to teach someone tenets of a religion, and to say that it is a moral guide to live their lives with. Upon later contemplation that is their choice as a matter of freedom of conscience. That isn't brainwashing.

    Brainwashing: "forcible indoctrination into a new set of attitudes and beliefs "
    the fact that they are given the choice later on is irrelevant. The children are required to go to religion class where they learn all about how great god is and how he's judging them etc, ie they are forcibly indoctrinated.

    As with all brainwashing, there is no requirement to continually force the ideas on them throughout their lives. Once they are indoctrinated they'll go on believing it all on their own

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sorry, I went to a denominational school (albeit not a Roman Catholic one) however, I cannot say at any time in my raising that I was forcibly told that I had to believe in God out of coercion. I was taught about the Christian understanding of God, and after doubting, I decided to discover Christianity for myself by reading the Bible.
    Actual coercion isn't a necessity. Children are taught that this is the way things are before they know any better. Their brains develop believing that this is the way things are. Beating it into them is not actually required (although it did happen in some cases)

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I actually learned more from reading the Bible myself, than I ever did at school both primary and secondary.

    There are two sets of rights to be considered (both of these given in the Constitution):
    1) Freedom of conscience
    2) Freedom of parents to educate their children in religious and moral matters.
    There should absolutely be freedom for parents to teach their children whatever they want, whether they're catholics or protestants or muslims or racists or hippies or whatever. They can teach their kids whatever they want. that doesn't mean it's not brainwashing and I'd rather they taught their own kids and didn't insist that everyone's kids learn it in school
    Jakkass wrote: »
    For Christians, God is very much real. Just because we don't share your understanding that God hasn't revealed Himself to us doesn't mean that you have any right to tell Christian parents how to raise their children. They differ in understanding with you on the issue, and that's basically the end of the line. It isn't forcibly indoctrinating people to teach them a religious path. Likewise it may be your opinion that the world came into existence purely through natural processes, however this is also unverifiable by proof. However through what I have seen spiritually and through how the Bible has come true in my life, and what the Bible has told me about human experience and about past events I believe there is enough indication for God's existence. It is up to everyone to explore, and it shouldn't be your perogative to stop parents educating their children however they please.
    Would you have any issue with people teaching their children racist beliefs or teaching them that women are inferior? How about teaching them that fairy stories are fact?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Please, you would need to show that the Jesuits actually thought that 7 year olds didn't know any better.
    That was the whole point of the motto.......
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is also based on the assumption that adults who formerly rejected Christianity don't come to accept it at a later stage. C.S Lewis was 38 when he found God.
    What's your point? C.S Lewis didn't live in a bubble that kept out all religious influence. The same as anyone else, he was taught that god exists and not believing was much less common in those days. He lived in a religious world and so the idea that he would become religious does not detract from my point.
    Things can happen in people's lives that make them turn to god having previously rejected him but all that proves is that god has easy answers to difficult questions. Brainwashing isn't necessarily the only way way that people are indoctrinated into religion but it is what happens in the vast majority of cases and more often than not someone who embraces religion is merely quitting the fight against the brainwashing rather than deciding all on their own


    Jakkass wrote: »
    There are several reasons why religion is a positive force in society. It encourages giving, and columnists such as David Quinn have noted that religious giving far exceeds any secular giving, it lessens the likelihood of suicide if people attend a religious congregation on a weekly basis, it hands us down moral codes. I'm not saying that atheists don't have a moral code, and I never suggested that. Religion also advocates a reverence of life and stable family units. Society would be much darker without it in my opinion.
    One thing I would say about the giving is that there are far more religious people so of course their giving exceed those of secular people. And it could well be that secular people give to charities that have religious affiliations. I'd like to see some evidence of that.

    As for lessening the likelyhood of suicide, why does it have to be a religious congregation? Can people not get comradery from secular people? Can they not be given a moral code from a secular person?

    And secularism also advocates a reverence of life. Unlike religious people we know that there's nothing after this life so we know that if we kill someone it's for keeps


  • #83
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass, tell me, if God exists then why are no two gods the same?

    Why is it that pretty much every society has had some form of supernatural being but they have all been drastically different. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are similar because they had the same root but when you go further afield there are massive differences, eg Native Americans worshipping trees and rocks or these guys who worship Prince Philip.

    If there was one true God why didn't Columbus sail across to America to find the Native Americans praying in churches?


  • #84
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Also, what about good and moral people who happen not to believe in your god?

    What about a good man who was born in turkey to muslim parents and so is now a muslim?

    What about pre Columbus native americans, who had never heard of jesus christ?

    Do they not get to go to heaven because they happened to be born in the wrong place or at the wrong time?

    If not where do they go?

    If they do as long as they live good lives then why is it necessary to believe it your god?

    Remember that correlation does not equal causation. There are many moral people who believe in the christian god but there are just as many who believe in different gods or who believe in no god. Believing in the bible or even having heard of it is not required in order to be moral. You might argue that it can help but it's not necessary. So why should these people be punished?


  • #85
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,070 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Jakkass, tell me, if God exists then why are no two gods the same?

    Why is it that pretty much every society has had some form of supernatural being but they have all been drastically different. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are similar because they had the same root but when you go further afield there are massive differences, eg Native Americans worshipping trees and rocks or these guys who worship Prince Philip.

    If there was one true God why didn't Columbus sail across to America to find the Native Americans praying in churches?

    Why are all organisms and species different to one another? Things evolve, branches form and changes happen. Zoroastrianism is thought to be the "base" philosophy behind many religions.

    I'm Agnostic btw, so I'm not trying to argue that there is a God.


  • #86
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Kernel wrote: »
    But you don't believe in a multiverse, so you believe the universe is a cyclical thing that changes it's properties and laws each time it creates itself? Sorry, but all you are preaching is supposition and faith. I think the simpler explanation is that the universe was created, and has a purpose. We don't know enough about it at the moment I'm afraid.
    I am absolutely preaching supposition. I don't have all the answers to the universe and I don't pretend to. I'm giving scenarios that may or may not be the case. But I have discounted the christian god scenario because it doesn't fit with the available evidence. That leaves me with a number of possibilities, one of which is multiple universes.


    Kernel wrote: »
    As for amino acids forming proteins, no problems there. My point is why should amino acids have formed proteins, why should proteins have formed organisms, and why should such organisms have worked through evolution to form complex organisms? Things needed to create the universe were the laws and properties of the universe, matter - lots of matter, and lots of energy. Saying that all this just happened because it couldn't have happened any other way just stretches credulity too much for me.

    This all reminds me of the Pratchett quote: In the beginning there was nothing. Which exploded. :)

    The idea that the universe came into existence in a natural way which we don't yet understand, then the thousands of millions of billions of trillions of quadtrillions of quintillions of sextillions of atoms that were created got sloshed around for billions and billions of years until by chance they happened to form in the right way to form an amino acid stretches credulity

    but


    An omnipotent, omnipresent and infinitely complex being that always existed that violates the laws of nature and didn't have to be created like everything else, who made the universe exactly as it is and then created people and gave them a book by which to lead their lives that's full of errors and contradictions and if they're "good people" (good to be determined by him), he takes them up to his cloud house where they live forever and didn't leave a shred of actual evidence of his existence

    That doesn't stretch credulity?


    I refer you to the example I gave in AH:
    Sam Vimes wrote:
    Imagine I stood 30 metres from a dart board and threw a dart, it would be pretty much impossible for me to get a bullseye. If I got one it might even be taken as a miracle by some religious people

    But if I stood there and threw a dart every 3 seconds for the rest of my natural life and after 70 years I finally hit the board, no one would think it was a miracle. They'd look at the fact that I threw it billions of times and say I was bound to hit it at least once

    So that's how all this order happened. Through trillions and trillions and trillions of failed attempts
    Can you not understand how the above is perfectly logical and explains how life could form from non life? The only part that cannot be explained through natural laws is the actual creation of the matter but all that really means is we're not yet advanced enough to understand it. It doesn't automatically mean God did it


  • #87
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Upward Spiral wrote: »
    Why are all organisms and species different to one another? Things evolve, branches form and changes happen. Zoroastrianism is thought to be the "base" philosophy behind many religions.

    I'm Agnostic btw, so I'm not trying to argue that there is a God.

    I believe that things evolve and I completely understand your logic but I want it explained from a religious perspective. If there is one true god why is there more than one religion? Were the people living on the north american continent not "worthy" of being told of god's existence?


  • #88
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    the fact that they are given the choice later on is irrelevant. The children are required to go to religion class where they learn all about how great god is and how he's judging them etc, ie they are forcibly indoctrinated.

    No they aren't. They are taught the tenets of Christianity, and then after having been educated, they have the room to think for themselves about it. I actually thank God that people can actually learn these things and be kinda open to them before they start putting the barriers up. Also why isn't it brainwashing to not teach any child religion, and to tell them that it is false? If people don't know about religion, quite simply they won't find a spiritual path for themselves. As such I think it is only right and proper that choices be put towards them in their lives. I think not teaching children about religion is the same thing as teaching the child about one faith and only one. You are predisposing them (which is my interpretation of your misuse of "brainwashing) into secular life. I personally want people to know Jesus Christ, that's the only difference between me and you. You want to predispose them to atheism / agnosticism, and I want to predispose them to know the truth of Christianity. You must hold your own views accountable on the same scale of criticism.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As with all brainwashing, there is no requirement to continually force the ideas on them throughout their lives. Once they are indoctrinated they'll go on believing it all on their own

    Explain yourself then. Why didn't you believe it? Your very existence has nullified your point. Many people who are raised Christian don't accept it in later stages in their lives. Many others do. This isn't brainwashing.

    Once people are "indoctrinated" into atheism or agnosticism are they not brought up to raise barriers against any form of religion? You must apply this same criticism to yourself. I don't believe this to be indoctrination, I'm merely using your same logic.

    Nothing but tripe.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Actual coercion isn't a necessity. Children are taught that this is the way things are before they know any better. Their brains develop believing that this is the way things are. Beating it into them is not actually required (although it did happen in some cases)

    Of course it is. Otherwise it isn't brainwashing.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    There should absolutely be freedom for parents to teach their children whatever they want, whether they're catholics or protestants or muslims or racists or hippies or whatever. They can teach their kids whatever they want. that doesn't mean it's not brainwashing and I'd rather they taught their own kids and didn't insist that everyone's kids learn it in school.

    If you believe in this freedom of parents to teach their children what they want then your point on brainwashing isn't even relevant anymore. As for every child having to learn it in school. I agree with you that there should be more secular schools, but if parents want to bring their children to faith schools that is their perogative. I'm personally thankful for the ethos of the schools I went to, I took it for granted until my second last year of school.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Would you have any issue with people teaching their children racist beliefs or teaching them that women are inferior? How about teaching them that fairy stories are fact?

    Christianity does not advocate racism, that women are inferior. Christianity is more substantiated than any fairy tale. Hence why the Bible isn't in the fiction section in your bookshop, you might have noticed that.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    That was the whole point of the motto.......

    I don't believe it to be. Christianity is a means of gaining spiritual maturity, and as such I believe that this is what the Jesuits were referring to. Not that they had indoctrination chambers in the classrooms.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What's your point? C.S Lewis didn't live in a bubble that kept out all religious influence. The same as anyone else, he was taught that god exists and not believing was much less common in those days. He lived in a religious world and so the idea that he would become religious does not detract from my point.

    This is my problem with your posts Sam, you start off with one assertion, and then you add clauses to it afterwards. You said in the post, that it is much more difficult after age 10 or 11. However I gave you an example, and there are numerous examples of people who have accepted Christ much later than that. As such I think that the relevance is minimal. Infact I don't think primary or secondary education although I am thankful for it was anywhere near enough to convert me in and of itself. I had to read God's inspired Word for myself, and to see what relevance it had to me. I didn't know many things about Christianity before I read the Bible. It opened my eyes completely. I still need to read it to refresh my memory about what the Jewish prophets did, or what Jesus, Paul, Peter and the other Apostles spoke about how Christ could change my life.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Things can happen in people's lives that make them turn to god having previously rejected him but all that proves is that god has easy answers to difficult questions. Brainwashing isn't necessarily the only way way that people are indoctrinated into religion but it is what happens in the vast majority of cases and more often than not someone who embraces religion is merely quitting the fight against the brainwashing rather than deciding all on their own

    Indeed they can, and thank God that they do. I don't think God has easy answers to difficult questions at all. Some things about God still leave me puzzled and confused. Nobody can ever have a full understanding of God, but we have been given a partial understanding, in human terms through the Bible. There is much more we cannot know about God and His glory.


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    One thing I would say about the giving is that there are far more religious people so of course their giving exceed those of secular people. And it could well be that secular people give to charities that have religious affiliations. I'd like to see some evidence of that.

    16% of the worlds population are atheists. Despite this there are very few secular aid organisations. Also why would atheists give to religious aid organisations, of which many proselytize.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    As for lessening the likelyhood of suicide, why does it have to be a religious congregation? Can people not get comradery from secular people? Can they not be given a moral code from a secular person?

    The facts show currently that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. We have yet to see how secular organisations can alleviate this, I would attribute it to the understanding of God though in a big way.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And secularism also advocates a reverence of life. Unlike religious people we know that there's nothing after this life so we know that if we kill someone it's for keeps

    So you're claiming the afterlife makes theists more murderous :pac:
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Jakkass, tell me, if God exists then why are no two gods the same?

    Well I believe that only one God exists. So no two gods doesn't really apply to my understanding. Why aren't two concepts of God the same? It's an interesting question. I would attribute it to confusion. Although there are a lot of concepts of God which are very similar. Particularly the Abrahamic versions of God. Jewish scholars have accepted that Christians and Muslims follow the same God as they do.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Why is it that pretty much every society has had some form of supernatural being but they have all been drastically different. Christianity, Islam and Judaism are similar because they had the same root but when you go further afield there are massive differences, eg Native Americans worshipping trees and rocks or these guys who worship Prince Philip.

    I'd say because they have had a sense of the divine all of them. God gave each and every person this sense. However after having this sense many derived for themselves what they thought that this being might have been. The Independent (UK) did a rather interesting piece on the "God part of the brain" recently. Might be worth a look.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If there was one true God why didn't Columbus sail across to America to find the Native Americans praying in churches?

    The evangelistic effort was one which was brought about by the Apostles, so if the Apostles and subsequent generations had not visited the Americas there would be no Gospel.

    Let me tell you about another event in the colonial era.

    The Portuguese arrive in Kerala, India with their Bibles and their missionaries. They are shocked to see that people are already worshipping Jesus Christ in their churches. Why? Thomas the Apostle had already been far sooner than the Portuguese had ever known Christ. However the Vatican insisted that these people must follow Catholicism and their Indian form of Christianity wasn't good enough.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Also, what about good and moral people who happen not to believe in your god?

    Nobody is good. We have all sinned and fallen short of God's glory. We aren't good through works, but rather we are put right through faith in God and then we are able to bear fruit. This is a Christian belief.

    See Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What about a good man who was born in turkey to muslim parents and so is now a muslim?

    We can only become truly good through faith in Jesus Christ.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What about pre Columbus native americans, who had never heard of jesus christ?

    Well in accounts were are told that the apocalypse won't happen until everyone in all parts of the world have heard about Jesus Christ. Mark explains that those who hear the good news and accept it will be saved, but those who hear it and reject it will be condemned. This gives credence to a view that judgement based on this is only for those who hear the Gospel. However, I can't be sure on this.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Do they not get to go to heaven because they happened to be born in the wrong place or at the wrong time?

    That's up to the Father, and not me.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    If they do as long as they live good lives then why is it necessary to believe it your god?

    Human beings can only be good after accepting salvation.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Remember that correlation does not equal causation. There are many moral people who believe in the christian god but there are just as many who believe in different gods or who believe in no god. Believing in the bible or even having heard of it is not required in order to be moral. You might argue that it can help but it's not necessary. So why should these people be punished?

    Merely doing good things, doesn't in my book make you a good person. It will be God's morals that count at the Day of Judgement, nor ours.

    If people reject or deny Jesus, so too will He deny you before the Father. (Matthew 10:33)

    If there is anything that could be considered to be showing disrespect to the Father who has given us this creation, and this chance to serve Him, and this chance to live abundantly for Him (John 10:10), it would be rejecting God.

    We are told if we doubt God's existence, even our eating is a sin. (Romans 14:23)


  • #89
    Blue_Wolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Blue_Wolf


    I see your point Turgon and well said may I add but..

    In the case of someone killing someone else because they wanted to be is that ok? I'm referring to assistant suicide.


  • #90
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No they aren't. They are taught the tenets of Christianity, and then after having been educated, they have the room to think for themselves about it. I actually thank God that people can actually learn these things and be kinda open to them before they start putting the barriers up. Also why isn't it brainwashing to not teach any child religion, and to tell them that it is false? If people don't know about religion, quite simply they won't find a spiritual path for themselves. As such I think it is only right and proper that choices be put towards them in their lives. I think not teaching children about religion is the same thing as teaching the child about one faith and only one. You are predisposing them (which is my interpretation of your misuse of "brainwashing) into secular life. I personally want people to know Jesus Christ, that's the only difference between me and you. You want to predispose them to atheism / agnosticism, and I want to predispose them to know the truth of Christianity. You must hold your own views accountable on the same scale of criticism.
    I don't want to predispose them to anything, that's my whole point. I acknowledge that a 6 year old is too young to fully comprehend the idea of religion or atheism and it's not fair to teach it as if it is fact when he doesn't know any better. I don't believe they should be taught atheism, I believe they should be taught nothing until they are old enough to comprehend what they are being told. And if you think that would decrease the likelihood that they believe then that only adds credence to the idea that it's brainwashing.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Explain yourself then. Why didn't you believe it? Your very existence has nullified your point. Many people who are raised Christian don't accept it in later stages in their lives. Many others do. This isn't brainwashing.
    Firstly, brainwashing doesn't always work so my existence doesn't detract from my point. Secondly, although my mother was a nun at one time and my father plays the organ in a church every sunday, they firmly believed that we should have freedom to make our own choices. I was always taught to make up my own mind and to question things, rather than accept something as fact without any evidence.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Once people are "indoctrinated" into atheism or agnosticism are they not brought up to raise barriers against any form of religion? You must apply this same criticism to yourself. I don't believe this to be indoctrination, I'm merely using your same logic.
    Yes they would put up the same barriers. That's why I don't think they should be taught that either until they're old enough
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course it is. Otherwise it isn't brainwashing.
    Teaching a child who is too young to understand that something is true when it is very much debatable is brainwashing, just not by your narrow definition of the word. It can just as easily be done through positive re-enforcement as negative
    Jakkass wrote: »
    If you believe in this freedom of parents to teach their children what they want then your point on brainwashing isn't even relevant anymore
    I believe in their freedom to do it because I'm a firm believer in freedom. That doesn't mean I approve of it or that it's not brainwashing.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Christianity does not advocate racism, that women are inferior. Christianity is more substantiated than any fairy tale. Hence why the Bible isn't in the fiction section in your bookshop, you might have noticed that.
    Firstly, christianity is not more substantiated that a fairy tale but that's beside the point, as was your reply. I didn't ask you whether racism or teaching that women are inferior are bad things. I asked you if you would have issues with people teaching their children it. It was in response to your comment saying parents should be allowed teach their children whatever they want.

    you actually answered my question. You think that parents should be allowed teach their children whatever they want as long as what they're teaching meets with your moral standards.

    Also, christianity very much advocates that women are inferior. Cue you giving a bible quote that denies the obvious fact that it does
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't believe it to be. Christianity is a means of gaining spiritual maturity, and as such I believe that this is what the Jesuits were referring to. Not that they had indoctrination chambers in the classrooms.
    This is the problem we have. You say you "don't believe it to be" and then give an interpretation that is absolutely, 100%, totally, incredibly obviously wrong. You have completely misinterpreted the phrase because it doesn't fit with what you want to be true as you have done throughout our various debates. That's not what it means and I have absolutely no idea where you even got that idea from.

    The motto says "Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man". It means that young children are impressionable and can be steered down a desired path. Suggesting that it means anything else is just denying what's written in front of you
    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is my problem with your posts Sam, you start off with one assertion, and then you add clauses to it afterwards. You said in the post, that it is much more difficult after age 10 or 11. However I gave you an example, and there are numerous examples of people who have accepted Christ much later than that. As such I think that the relevance is minimal.
    The fact that a few statistically insignificant people picked it up later on does not in any way change the fact that it is more difficult to make people believe after the age of 10. I said difficult, not impossible.

    And they received the same indoctrination, they just fought against it for a time
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Indeed they can, and thank God that they do. I don't think God has easy answers to difficult questions at all. Some things about God still leave me puzzled and confused. Nobody can ever have a full understanding of God, but we have been given a partial understanding, in human terms through the Bible. There is much more we cannot know about God and His glory.
    There are indeed some concepts with god that are complex but my point was that when someone reaches a low point in their life or is experiencing a traumatic event, keeping God in mind can make themselves feel better.

    That does not mean that God exists and as we saw with that plane crash, doing so can make problems worse. The point is that people turn to god in traumatic times and that does not preclude the possibility of early brainwashing. I'm sure you've heard of the phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes"
    Jakkass wrote: »
    16% of the worlds population are atheists. Despite this there are very few secular aid organisations. Also why would atheists give to religious aid organisations, of which many proselytize.
    Atheists would give to aid organisations because they are doing good works. they wouldn't be so petty as to withhold money just because a particular charity is affiliated with god.

    And maybe there are few secular charities because the goodwill doesn't work both ways and religious people prefer to give to religious charities, meaning secular ones don't make any money. Or maybe there are secular charities but they don't feel the need to label themselves as secular, they're just charities
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The facts show currently that atheists are more likely to commit suicide than Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. We have yet to see how secular organisations can alleviate this, I would attribute it to the understanding of God though in a big way.
    Which facts?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    So you're claiming the afterlife makes theists more murderous :pac:
    It might well do. The consequences of killing someone when you're an atheist is that that person ceases to exist. If you're religious you think the person is going to paradise so you're almost doing them a favour. I know the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have got into those planes if they didn't think there was a heaven
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Well I believe that only one God exists. So no two gods doesn't really apply to my understanding. Why aren't two concepts of God the same? It's an interesting question. I would attribute it to confusion. Although there are a lot of concepts of God which are very similar. Particularly the Abrahamic versions of God. Jewish scholars have accepted that Christians and Muslims follow the same God as they do.
    I knew you'd imply that deep down all gods are the same. That's why I specifically said that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same root. What about the rest?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd say because they have had a sense of the divine all of them. God gave each and every person this sense. However after having this sense many derived for themselves what they thought that this being might have been. The Independent (UK) did a rather interesting piece on the "God part of the brain" recently. Might be worth a look.
    This is a very important point. They all have a sense of the divine but they built a whole belief structure around it. That's exactly what I believe (except the part about it being given by God). If that is the case, what makes you so sure that your god is the right one? You say there is supporting evidence but there's just as much supporting evidence for lots of religions. Judaism and Islam started from the same root and only branched off later. How are you so sure you're right? Were you lucky enough to be born in the right place?

    And what do you think would have happened if you were born in Turkey to muslim parents? Do you still think you'd be so sure that Christianity is the right faith? I've spoken on boards before to someone very much like yourself except he felt exactly the same way about islam. He was just as sure as you and used all the same justifications.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The evangelistic effort was one which was brought about by the Apostles, so if the Apostles and subsequent generations had not visited the Americas there would be no Gospel.
    But why would there be no gospel? Why were these people not worthy of having the gospel? Seems kind of cruel to condemn millions of people to hell just because their ancestors walked across the ice at Russia a few thousand years ago.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Let me tell you about another event in the colonial era.

    The Portuguese arrive in Kerala, India with their Bibles and their missionaries. They are shocked to see that people are already worshipping Jesus Christ in their churches. Why? Thomas the Apostle had already been far sooner than the Portuguese had ever known Christ. However the Vatican insisted that these people must follow Catholicism and their Indian form of Christianity wasn't good enough.
    I don't understand your point
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Nobody is good. We have all sinned and fallen short of God's glory. We aren't good through works, but rather we are put right through faith in God and then we are able to bear fruit. This is a Christian belief.

    See Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23, Psalm 14:1, Psalm 53:1

    We can only become truly good through faith in Jesus Christ.

    That's up to the Father, and not me.

    Human beings can only be good after accepting salvation.

    Merely doing good things, doesn't in my book make you a good person. It will be God's morals that count at the Day of Judgement, nor ours.

    If people reject or deny Jesus, so too will He deny you before the Father. (Matthew 10:33)

    If there is anything that could be considered to be showing disrespect to the Father who has given us this creation, and this chance to serve Him, and this chance to live abundantly for Him (John 10:10), it would be rejecting God.
    Are you seriously telling me that the only good people in the world are those who follow the bible? That even if someone lived their life just as well as a christian, he'd be condemned to hell because he was either born in the wrong place or to the wrong parents or at the wrong time?

    Are you saying that if someone built and ran an orphanage and saved the lives of hundreds of children in Turkey, he'd go to hell because he was born in the wrong place?

    If that is the case I don't want anything to do with your vain God thank you very much, a God who condemns people who have never done wrong because they didn't kiss his ass!

    This demonstrates the problem with religious thinking. You believe that the only good people in the world are those that follow your religion. That is exactly the thinking that allows people to fly planes into buildings


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't want to predispose them to anything, that's my whole point. I acknowledge that a 6 year old is too young to fully comprehend the idea of religion or atheism and it's not fair to teach it as if it is fact when he doesn't know any better. I don't believe they should be taught atheism, I believe they should be taught nothing until they are old enough to comprehend what they are being told. And if you think that would decrease the likelihood that they believe then that only adds credence to the idea that it's brainwashing.

    Irrelevant of whether or not the wish is there, you are predisposing them to secularism if you don't allow a choice of religious systems, through knowing one at least you have the option to accept or reject such a system. In what you are suggesting there's nothing, and I actually don't think that's right either, or indeed that you have the right to insist that parents do this. Of course I was too young to understand Christianity, however at least when I was old enough to understand I had a basis to explore into further.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Firstly, brainwashing doesn't always work so my existence doesn't detract from my point. Secondly, although my mother was a nun at one time and my father plays the organ in a church every sunday, they firmly believed that we should have freedom to make our own choices. I was always taught to make up my own mind and to question things, rather than accept something as fact without any evidence.

    It's not brainwashing due to lack of coercion. We've been through this already. As for questioning things, I hope this isn't an implication as if Christians do not question their own path. I wasn't sure of what beliefs I had before I explored Christianity and it made sense to me.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes they would put up the same barriers. That's why I don't think they should be taught that either until they're old enough

    I think people should be free to live whatever way of life they want to live, and raise their children within it. It's the rights that they have under the Constitution, and I think it's fair that parents can teach their child or bring their child to a place where they can receive religious and moral education.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Teaching a child who is too young to understand that something is true when it is very much debatable is brainwashing, just not by your narrow definition of the word. It can just as easily be done through positive re-enforcement as negative

    I think a child can understand a good portion of it, however obviously not the complete value of the faith. It's like children can't understand everything in history, so they are taught relevant pieces.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Firstly, christianity is not more substantiated that a fairy tale but that's beside the point, as was your reply. I didn't ask you whether racism or teaching that women are inferior are bad things. I asked you if you would have issues with people teaching their children it. It was in response to your comment saying parents should be allowed teach their children whatever they want.

    We've been through this time and time again. Yes it is. There isn't archaeology, history, and writing to the scale that substantiates Christianity in any given fairy tale. I don't think it's reasonable to refer to Christianity as a fairy tale anyway, considering it isn't considered fiction.

    I don't think I should answer any question likening Christianity to racism, or treating women less reasonably than men. It isn't like that at all, and I think you should have the sense to discern that.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you actually answered my question. You think that parents should be allowed teach their children whatever they want as long as what they're teaching meets with your moral standards.

    Also, christianity very much advocates that women are inferior. Cue you giving a bible quote that denies the obvious fact that it does

    Galatians 3:28 amongst others.

    I think parents should be allowed to raise the child according to their own religious affiliation, and moral standard. I never suggested that I should impose mine on them. I would prefer if they all came to Christ, but I can't guarantee that.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is the problem we have. You say you "don't believe it to be" and then give an interpretation that is absolutely, 100%, totally, incredibly obviously wrong. You have completely misinterpreted the phrase because it doesn't fit with what you want to be true as you have done throughout our various debates. That's not what it means and I have absolutely no idea where you even got that idea from.

    Actually Sam, you are just saying that I have a problem, not that "we" have a problem. You are loading your bias into a quotation. You automatically assume that they are referring to brainwashing. I am trying to understand what they could have meant as Christians. I would consider it a reference to the prudence, sense, and maturity that can be gained through learning about Christian lifestyle.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    The fact that a few statistically insignificant people picked it up later on does not in any way change the fact that it is more difficult to make people believe after the age of 10. I said difficult, not impossible.

    Sam, I've heard of countless people convert to Christianity as adults. It's not a rare thing by any standard.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And they received the same indoctrination, they just fought against it for a time

    Or they read the Bible themselves as I did, and found it out for themselves.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    There are indeed some concepts with god that are complex but my point was that when someone reaches a low point in their life or is experiencing a traumatic event, keeping God in mind can make themselves feel better.

    Sam, after reading this post. I have to say it's clear that you don't know what a religious experience is. It's far more than "keeping God in mind making themselves feel better".
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Atheists would give to aid organisations because they are doing good works. they wouldn't be so petty as to withhold money just because a particular charity is affiliated with god.

    I just don't see how any atheist could give money to a charity that proselytizes a false message according to them.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And maybe there are few secular charities because the goodwill doesn't work both ways and religious people prefer to give to religious charities, meaning secular ones don't make any money. Or maybe there are secular charities but they don't feel the need to label themselves as secular, they're just charities

    Definition of secular: "profane: not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment"

    If they aren't concerned with religion, they are secular. There's not really a label per sé.

    Which facts?
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It might well do. The consequences of killing someone when you're an atheist is that that person ceases to exist. If you're religious you think the person is going to paradise so you're almost doing them a favour. I know the 9/11 terrorists wouldn't have got into those planes if they didn't think there was a heaven

    No... No it doesn't. Just take a book out on 20th century history. You'd be amazed what State atheism drove leaders in Eastern Europe to.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I knew you'd imply that deep down all gods are the same. That's why I specifically said that Judaism, Christianity and Islam have the same root. What about the rest?

    No, rather that there is a single God. I am a monotheist after all.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This is a very important point. They all have a sense of the divine but they built a whole belief structure around it. That's exactly what I believe (except the part about it being given by God). If that is the case, what makes you so sure that your god is the right one? You say there is supporting evidence but there's just as much supporting evidence for lots of religions. Judaism and Islam started from the same root and only branched off later. How are you so sure you're right? Were you lucky enough to be born in the right place?

    There is a level of truth in all religions. I hold Christianity to be the ultimate truth.

    As for being born in the wrong place. Do a search of the A&A forum, you'll see that this is nonsense. People convert to different religions from different places in the world.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And what do you think would have happened if you were born in Turkey to muslim parents? Do you still think you'd be so sure that Christianity is the right faith? I've spoken on boards before to someone very much like yourself except he felt exactly the same way about islam. He was just as sure as you and used all the same justifications.

    See above.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    But why would there be no gospel? Why were these people not worthy of having the gospel? Seems kind of cruel to condemn millions of people to hell just because their ancestors walked across the ice at Russia a few thousand years ago.

    Well Sam, it's rather clear:

    1. Christianity was based on teachings from Y'shua ben Nazerat in Israel.
    2. The Apostles spread it from Jerusalem.
    3. Therefore the Apostles and other Christians would have have gone to the Indians.
    4. If they hadn't there would be no Gospel there.

    I'll get round to the rest later.


  • #92
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Irrelevant of whether or not the wish is there, you are predisposing them to secularism if you don't allow a choice of religious systems, through knowing one at least you have the option to accept or reject such a system
    Right so we're agreed. Teaching children a specific ethos from an early age pre-disposes them to believing that ethos throughout their lives. Whether you call it brainwashing or remove the negative connotations and call it pre-disposing the result is the same. By teaching children a specific ethos you remove some element of choice in the matter. You make them more likely to follow the one you taught, whether the one you taught is right or not.

    How would you feel about teaching all religions in a non biased way, ie instead of saying "god is X", you say "christians believe god is X, muslims believe god is Y, hindus believe there are many gods which are Z and atheists believe in no gods".

    Wouldn't that be the best way to teach it, without any bias towards a particular religion?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's not brainwashing due to lack of coercion. We've been through this already
    We have indeed been through it and I maintain that positive re-enforcement is just as effective. If you tell a child that black people are bad and praise him and reward him whenever he says it, you can very effectively brainwash him. The movie American History X shows this where the Dad was racist and the kid respected the Dad and wanted his love so he became one too. this has been amply demonstrated in real life No coercion necessary
    Jakkass wrote: »
    . As for questioning things, I hope this isn't an implication as if Christians do not question their own path. I wasn't sure of what beliefs I had before I explored Christianity and it made sense to me.
    I think you'll find questioning things is not really encouraged in christianity. Just ask Galileo. Oh questions such as "What is god?" and "How can I better serve God?" are encouraged but questions such as "Why should we believe in God when there's no evidence?", "Why shouldn't I become a muslim when there's just as much evidence that they're right?" and "Why do you believe this thing that has been proven not to be true?" are not so much. They only like questions they have the answer to and they don't have satisfactory answers to many questions other than "god did it"

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think people should be free to live whatever way of life they want to live, and raise their children within it
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think I should answer any question likening Christianity to racism, or treating women less reasonably than men. It isn't like that at all, and I think you should have the sense to discern that.
    Can you not see the contradiction there? you think people should be allowed to teach their children whatever they want but you object to me asking if people should be allowed teach their children racism. Can they teach their children whatever they want or can't they?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    We've been through this time and time again. Yes it is. There isn't archaeology, history, and writing to the scale that substantiates Christianity in any given fairy tale. I don't think it's reasonable to refer to Christianity as a fairy tale anyway, considering it isn't considered fiction.
    It's considered fiction by a great many people actually.

    There is evidence that certain events took places and that certain places existed but you're not trying to prove that, for example, Sodom existed. It almost certainly did exist. You are trying to prove that Sodom existed and that God destroyed it. Proving the first part brings you no closer to proving the second part.

    For example, if someone on an archaeological dig unearthed an angel, that would be evidence. But if someone wrote in a book that they saw an angel but had nothing to back it up, that's not evidence. If an archaeologist claimed to have unearthed an angel the first thing I would say is "prove it". And it would not be enough for him to say "well the place that I claim to have unearthed it exists therefore it exists"

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Galatians 3:28 amongst others.
    Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

    It seems you can sell your daughter into slavery and that she shall not go free like the male ones. As with a lot of the bible, any quote you give can be contradicted by another one

    Cue you telling me that that's not really what it means

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Actually Sam, you are just saying that I have a problem, not that "we" have a problem. You are loading your bias into a quotation. You automatically assume that they are referring to brainwashing. I am trying to understand what they could have meant as Christians. I would consider it a reference to the prudence, sense, and maturity that can be gained through learning about Christian lifestyle.
    you can consider it whatever you want, the facts are the facts. They might not have thought of it as "brainwashing" by your definition of the term but the result is the same. And you actually agree with me as you showed above when you said that teaching a child secularism before he understands pre disposes him towards secularism

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam, I've heard of countless people convert to Christianity as adults. It's not a rare thing by any standard.
    This point has already been taken care of because you agree with me. They were pre disposed towards it. Not all pre disposition must take place before the age of 7, it's just more difficult. Simply living in a society that is overwhelmingly christian will pre dispose you towards becoming a christian, especially if you're having a hard time and everyone's going on about how great life is with their god

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam, after reading this post. I have to say it's clear that you don't know what a religious experience is. It's far more than "keeping God in mind making themselves feel better".
    I know exactly what a religious experience is actually (this specific type of religious experience anyway). It's reassuring yourself that you're going to be ok because your imaginary friend says so. It's the logic that pilot followed. It worked out for him but unfortunately not 16 other people. Maybe they weren't christians and therefore worthy of dying?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    I just don't see how any atheist could give money to a charity that proselytizes a false message according to them.
    Well it happens so maybe your view of atheists is wrong and maybe your view that good only comes from god is wrong.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Definition of secular: "profane: not concerned with or devoted to religion; "sacred and profane music"; "secular drama"; "secular architecture", "children being brought up in an entirely profane environment"

    If they aren't concerned with religion, they are secular. There's not really a label per sé.
    My point is that when you think of religious charities you can rattle them off the top of your head because they heavily promote their religious influence and especially because you are religious. Whereas when you think of, for example, a breast cancer charity you don't automatically think "that's a secular charity". There are lots of charities that aren't associated with god.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    No... No it doesn't. Just take a book out on 20th century history. You'd be amazed what State atheism drove leaders in Eastern Europe to.
    I said it might make them more likely. Not that atheists are incapable of doing wrong.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, rather that there is a single God. I am a monotheist after all.
    That's what I meant
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for being born in the wrong place. Do a search of the A&A forum, you'll see that this is nonsense. People convert to different religions from different places in the world.
    Yes some do but the vast majority do not. The vast majority are pre disposed to a particular religion by their parents and by their peers. And that does not automatically mean they are bad people and worthy of hell

    In fact if their parents wish them to follow their religion and they reject it and follow another they're breaking the 6th commandment. Cue you telling me that they're not really

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Well Sam, it's rather clear:

    1. Christianity was based on teachings from Y'shua ben Nazerat in Israel.
    2. The Apostles spread it from Jerusalem.
    3. Therefore the Apostles and other Christians would have have gone to the Indians.
    4. If they hadn't there would be no Gospel there.

    I'll get round to the rest later.
    You're misunderstanding me. If there is one true God why is there not one true gospel that was given to all peoples? Why did they not sail across to find the native americans following the same religion independently? That would be enough proof for me that it was given by god, assuming it could be proven that no one had brought it over such as Thomas did in India


    you say that we were given a sense of divinity and that "many derived for themselves what they thought that this being might have been". But that contradicts the idea that the bible is absolute truth given by god. Was it dictated by god or did we derive it ourselves from a sense we had?

    And if humans all derived what this sense might have been and we came up with thousands of different interpretations, how can we begin to determine which interpretation is the right one, if any? There is evidence to support the vast majority of them. At least as much as there is to support christianity

    Personally I'd think Zoroastrianism would be the closest since it's meant to have been the first and wouldn't have had a chance to be corrupted by people with an agenda


  • #93
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Right so we're agreed. Teaching children a specific ethos from an early age pre-disposes them to believing that ethos throughout their lives. Whether you call it brainwashing or remove the negative connotations and call it pre-disposing the result is the same. By teaching children a specific ethos you remove some element of choice in the matter. You make them more likely to follow the one you taught, whether the one you taught is right or not.

    Sam, everyone predisposes their children to different things in different ways. The only way that children could not be predisposed to anything would be if we had human beings monitored by computers constantly with no personality, no culture, no language, and no view on religion at all. Religion is a factor of predisposing a child, but only one. It's like when people teach their children cultural factors of their community. Whether or not it is the atheist who teaches their child that God doesn't exist, the agnostic that doesn't teach their child any religion, or the Christian who raises their child believing that Jesus Christ died to save them, and that there is a God who created the world.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    How would you feel about teaching all religions in a non biased way, ie instead of saying "god is X", you say "christians believe god is X, muslims believe god is Y, hindus believe there are many gods which are Z and atheists believe in no gods".

    Wouldn't that be the best way to teach it, without any bias towards a particular religion?

    You mean teaching all religions in an unbiased way in schools? I wouldn't be all that against it. I learned about quite a few religions in school myself, although there was a Christian ethos in the way it was run. If I was bringing my child to such a school however, if I indeed do have a child, I would bring them up with Christian values and Christian tenets of belief at home.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I think you'll find questioning things is not really encouraged in christianity. Just ask Galileo. Oh questions such as "What is god?" and "How can I better serve God?" are encouraged but questions such as "Why should we believe in God when there's no evidence?", "Why shouldn't I become a muslim when there's just as much evidence that they're right?" and "Why do you believe this thing that has been proven not to be true?" are not so much. They only like questions they have the answer to and they don't have satisfactory answers to many questions other than "god did it"

    I've had a different experience of Christianity to you then. Your assumption of no evidence however, truly depends on whether or not there is evidence. I believe God's existence is apparent in the world and in my life spiritually. That is a testament of it's truth to me. I think you will find that Christians are quite open to questions if you seek them in a non-confrontational tone, and if you are willing to accept that you don't know everything about how Christians lead their lives. It's the people who think they have it all sussed out that are the ones who are difficult for us to speak to.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Can you not see the contradiction there? you think people should be allowed to teach their children whatever they want but you object to me asking if people should be allowed teach their children racism. Can they teach their children whatever they want or can't they?

    Sam, I feel no reason to liken Christianity to racism or belittling women. That isn't what I believe, and it isn't what Christianity is about.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It's considered fiction by a great many people actually.

    That doesn't mark it as fiction however. The God question is a lot more open to debate than people often make it. Both atheists and theists are guilty in that regard.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    For example, if someone on an archaeological dig unearthed an angel, that would be evidence. But if someone wrote in a book that they saw an angel but had nothing to back it up, that's not evidence. If an archaeologist claimed to have unearthed an angel the first thing I would say is "prove it". And it would not be enough for him to say "well the place that I claim to have unearthed it exists therefore it exists"

    Problem: This is you putting a standard on what you consider evidence to be. If a Biblical claim is substantiated in reality, no matter what it is it does mean that the Bible is speaking at least some truth. That much must be conceded.

    I'm not going to reach a standard of evidence which you refine constantly to suit yourself. If this is the case, this merely means that you don't want to gain an understanding of where I am coming from, and that you want to pull the shutters over.

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Exodus 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do.

    It seems you can sell your daughter into slavery and that she shall not go free like the male ones. As with a lot of the bible, any quote you give can be contradicted by another one

    Cue you telling me that that's not really what it means

    No, cue me saying that it was to protect from rape.

    As for contradictions, if you don't accept that the New Testament fulfilled elements of the Torah like Jesus said it did (Matthew 5:17), then you won't understand it correctly. That means, that any teaching that is developed upon in the New Testament supersedes what has gone previously as it is a single revelation developing from beginning to end.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you can consider it whatever you want, the facts are the facts. They might not have thought of it as "brainwashing" by your definition of the term but the result is the same. And you actually agree with me as you showed above when you said that teaching a child secularism before he understands pre disposes him towards secularism

    Sorry Sam, you claiming that this is "fact" is merely a reason to harden yourself against disagreement. This isn't "fact" by any means at all. You might consider it to be, but that's all it is, your consideration. This doesn't make it "fact". Predisposing is rather different to brainwashing for me, and it happens to everyone, on every possible issue under the sun, one can't escape it. It's a product of society. These things can even be gained implicitly without words.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    This point has already been taken care of because you agree with me. They were pre disposed towards it. Not all pre disposition must take place before the age of 7, it's just more difficult. Simply living in a society that is overwhelmingly christian will pre dispose you towards becoming a christian, especially if you're having a hard time and everyone's going on about how great life is with their god

    I don't think it's more difficult for an older person to convert.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I know exactly what a religious experience is actually (this specific type of religious experience anyway). It's reassuring yourself that you're going to be ok because your imaginary friend says so. It's the logic that pilot followed. It worked out for him but unfortunately not 16 other people. Maybe they weren't christians and therefore worthy of dying?

    Sam, any Christian I know, and any Christian I have spoken to on a personal level about these religious experiences would outright disagree with you that a religious experience is just thinking that a God is there. There is much much more involved, for me anyway. It's not just thinking that there is a God there, there is a profound feeling within me, a connection. It's rather different from merely thinking.

    As for you somehow knowing the logic that the pilot had. You don't. You don't know the logic that is even behind the religious experiences of people on a daily basis. I don't even know the logic that was in the pilots mind at the time, but the difference is I don't pretend to. I don't think people who have never had a religious experience can relate to it, and as such over simplify them. Just my view on it though.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    My point is that when you think of religious charities you can rattle them off the top of your head because they heavily promote their religious influence and especially because you are religious. Whereas when you think of, for example, a breast cancer charity you don't automatically think "that's a secular charity". There are lots of charities that aren't associated with god.

    Of course I think of a Breast Cancer Society as a secular charity. Churches give to them, but they are not motivated by religion. Anyhow, what David Quinn was writing in the Irish Independent the day I read it about religious people giving more on average than non-believers, he used the example of Katrina where he said that there wasn't a non-religious charity to be seen after the disaster.

    Read the article yourself:
    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/thou-shalt-not-take-thy-local-charity-for-granted-1564480.html

    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I said it might make them more likely. Not that atheists are incapable of doing wrong.

    That's what I meant

    My point was that any ideology can do this with equal effect.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes some do but the vast majority do not. The vast majority are pre disposed to a particular religion by their parents and by their peers. And that does not automatically mean they are bad people and worthy of hell

    Quite a lot around the world now actually through evangelism and the Christian presence in the Eastern world.

    As for being worthy of hell: Everyone was given a way out for forgiveness of sins. I think people are without excuse.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    In fact if their parents wish them to follow their religion and they reject it and follow another they're breaking the 6th commandment. Cue you telling me that they're not really

    Cue me telling you, that Jesus says to put God above mother and father, wife and children in the Bible. So in those situations of conflict God's command comes first. Sounds rather simple to me. People have had to leave family, lifestyle, and everything behind to serve Christ. 200,000,000 Christians are threatened by persecution this year. I thank God I live in relative freedom to do this.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're misunderstanding me. If there is one true God why is there not one true gospel that was given to all peoples? Why did they not sail across to find the native americans following the same religion independently? That would be enough proof for me that it was given by god, assuming it could be proven that no one had brought it over such as Thomas did in India

    Jesus commanded for the Gospel to spread by evangelists, such as Paul and others. To deal with questions that are outside the Bible would be to elaborate on the Scriptures. I personally think I don't have the right to add to the Bible with opinions concerning what I don't know.

    God doesn't beckon to your commands anyway, even if it would be "proof enough for you". Jesus told the Pharisees that they would see no sign from him apart from the sign of Jonah, for they were an evil and an adulterous generation. I would assume the same applies to those who reject God.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    you say that we were given a sense of divinity and that "many derived for themselves what they thought that this being might have been". But that contradicts the idea that the bible is absolute truth given by god. Was it dictated by god or did we derive it ourselves from a sense we had?

    That depends on whether or not what they had derived for themselves was true in the first place doesn't it? I believe every religion has some truth in it, however that Christianity is the ultimate truth.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And if humans all derived what this sense might have been and we came up with thousands of different interpretations, how can we begin to determine which interpretation is the right one, if any? There is evidence to support the vast majority of them. At least as much as there is to support christianity.

    Perhaps in your opinion. I think Christianity is striking in this regard. However, I'm going to deal with Christianity alone in this religion. I think that other religious groups should defend themselves.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Personally I'd think Zoroastrianism would be the closest since it's meant to have been the first and wouldn't have had a chance to be corrupted by people with an agenda

    The first religion? Hinduism far predates it. Judaism existed at the same time as it, and came into contact with it in Persia during the Babylonian captivity of the Judeans in 570BC.


  • #94
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You mean teaching all religions in an unbiased way in schools? I wouldn't be all that against it. I learned about quite a few religions in school myself, although there was a Christian ethos in the way it was run. If I was bringing my child to such a school however, if I indeed do have a child, I would bring them up with Christian values and Christian tenets of belief at home.
    finally something we can agree on. Although you didn't have that type of schooling. Other religions were mentioned but christianity was always the main one
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I've had a different experience of Christianity to you then. Your assumption of no evidence however, truly depends on whether or not there is evidence. I believe God's existence is apparent in the world and in my life spiritually. That is a testament of it's truth to me. I think you will find that Christians are quite open to questions if you seek them in a non-confrontational tone, and if you are willing to accept that you don't know everything about how Christians lead their lives. It's the people who think they have it all sussed out that are the ones who are difficult for us to speak to.
    There is no evidence because if there was evidence debates such as these would no longer be happening. Unlike religious people, generally when secular people are presented with compelling evidence that something is true they accept it. However no such evidence has yet been presented

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam, I feel no reason to liken Christianity to racism or belittling women. That isn't what I believe, and it isn't what Christianity is about.
    You're missing the point!!!!!. Please try to understand my point. I am not likening christianity to racism. You said parents should be allowed teach their children anything and I asked if you think they should be allowed teach racism. That does not say anything against christianity, it only says something against the idea that someone should be allowed teach their children whatever they want. Your refusal to address my question says to me that you only think parents should be allowed teach their children things that you think are morally right and not "anything"
    Jakkass wrote: »
    That doesn't mark it as fiction however. The God question is a lot more open to debate than people often make it. Both atheists and theists are guilty in that regard.
    You said it's not "considered" fiction. I responded that many people do consider it fiction, which is true.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Problem: This is you putting a standard on what you consider evidence to be. If a Biblical claim is substantiated in reality, no matter what it is it does mean that the Bible is speaking at least some truth. That much must be conceded.

    I'm not going to reach a standard of evidence which you refine constantly to suit yourself. If this is the case, this merely means that you don't want to gain an understanding of where I am coming from, and that you want to pull the shutters over.
    I'm not refining my standard of evidence, it's always the same. Something written in a book 2000 years ago is not evidence. Any claim made by anyone that cannot be backed up is not evidence. Evidence is something that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Something that implies something might be true, such as the evidence of Sodom's existence only encourages you to dig deeper because you might be on the right track. It cannot be taken as evidence on its own


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, cue me saying that it was to protect from rape.
    My point exactly. I have no idea where you got that from the text.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for contradictions, if you don't accept that the New Testament fulfilled elements of the Torah like Jesus said it did (Matthew 5:17), then you won't understand it correctly. That means, that any teaching that is developed upon in the New Testament supersedes what has gone previously as it is a single revelation developing from beginning to end.
    You can keep saying that over and over again but it won't make it true. As far as I can see, your version of "understand correctly" means "rationalise and twist the meaning until it seems like there are no contradictions or until it fits your particular view"
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sorry Sam, you claiming that this is "fact" is merely a reason to harden yourself against disagreement. This isn't "fact" by any means at all. You might consider it to be, but that's all it is, your consideration. This doesn't make it "fact".
    The sentence only has 15 words in it. It's not that difficult to understand, unless of course you don't want it to mean what it actually does so you twist it until it means something else
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Predisposing is rather different to brainwashing for me, and it happens to everyone, on every possible issue under the sun, one can't escape it. It's a product of society. These things can even be gained implicitly without words.
    What's the difference exactly? Please don't say "coercion" because as I've already said, positive re-enforcement works just as well as has been amply demonstrated throughout history. Is it only brainwashing if what they're saying isn't true?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think it's more difficult for an older person to convert.
    Well based on the fact that only a relatively tiny number of people convert and the overwhelming majority don't I think the evidence disagrees with you there.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Sam, any Christian I know, and any Christian I have spoken to on a personal level about these religious experiences would outright disagree with you that a religious experience is just thinking that a God is there. There is much much more involved, for me anyway. It's not just thinking that there is a God there, there is a profound feeling within me, a connection. It's rather different from merely thinking.
    Whatever. Maybe they think there's more to it than just the comfort. That doesn't detract from the point I was making, that turning to God can make difficult situations seem better.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    As for you somehow knowing the logic that the pilot had. You don't. You don't know the logic that is even behind the religious experiences of people on a daily basis. I don't even know the logic that was in the pilots mind at the time, but the difference is I don't pretend to. I don't think people who have never had a religious experience can relate to it, and as such over simplify them. Just my view on it though.
    I know the logic he had because it was reported in the newspaper article. He could have done the emergency procedures but instead he prayed*. He trusted in God during a traumatic time and 16 people died.

    *That has yet to be 100% verified. See what I did there? It was written in the article but I know that the reporter might be wrong or sensationalising it. I will wait for for evidence before making a final judgement.

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Of course I think of a Breast Cancer Society as a secular charity. Churches give to them, but they are not motivated by religion. Anyhow, what David Quinn was writing in the Irish Independent the day I read it about religious people giving more on average than non-believers, he used the example of Katrina where he said that there wasn't a non-religious charity to be seen after the disaster.

    Read the article yourself:
    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/thou-shalt-not-take-thy-local-charity-for-granted-1564480.html
    All I read from that article was:"And yes of course, there are lots and lots of exceptions. There are extremely generous atheists and incredibly mean-minded, tight-fisted Christians."

    Basically he said "Here's my biased opinion (oh by the way everything you just read was bollocks)"

    Jakkass wrote: »
    My point was that any ideology can do this with equal effect.
    And my point is that the effect is not equal. In my opinion a religious person is generally more difficult to convince because their belief comes from an unquestionable power. Just look at yourself for example. Any time I give you a quote or reference similar you just twist it to make it seem like it doesn't say what it obviously does because you don't want it to be saying what it actually is

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Quite a lot around the world now actually through evangelism and the Christian presence in the Eastern world.

    As for being worthy of hell: Everyone was given a way out for forgiveness of sins. I think people are without excuse.
    look, stop telling me some people convert. I know some people convert. I'm talking about the vast majority that don't.

    What about the people who lived their entire lives having never heard of Jesus or God? Were they given a way out for forgiveness?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Cue me telling you, that Jesus says to put God above mother and father, wife and children in the Bible. So in those situations of conflict God's command comes first. Sounds rather simple to me. People have had to leave family, lifestyle, and everything behind to serve Christ. 200,000,000 Christians are threatened by persecution this year. I thank God I live in relative freedom to do this.
    Seems kind of flawed to require 5/6 of the world's population to break one commandment in order to follow another no?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    Jesus commanded for the Gospel to spread by evangelists, such as Paul and others. To deal with questions that are outside the Bible would be to elaborate on the Scriptures. I personally think I don't have the right to add to the Bible with opinions concerning what I don't know.

    God doesn't beckon to your commands anyway, even if it would be "proof enough for you". Jesus told the Pharisees that they would see no sign from him apart from the sign of Jonah, for they were an evil and an adulterous generation. I would assume the same applies to those who reject God.
    So basically you can't explain why no one ever heard of true god independently of current christians?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    That depends on whether or not what they had derived for themselves was true in the first place doesn't it? I believe every religion has some truth in it, however that Christianity is the ultimate truth.

    Perhaps in your opinion. I think Christianity is striking in this regard. However, I'm going to deal with Christianity alone in this religion. I think that other religious groups should defend themselves.
    I'd rather you didn't deal with christianity alone. It's a very important question. I'm not asking you to defend them, I'm asking you to defend yours over them. What makes you so sure that all the other thousands of interpretations of this "divine sense" are wrong and yours is 100% right?

    Jakkass wrote: »
    The first religion? Hinduism far predates it. Judaism existed at the same time as it, and came into contact with it in Persia during the Babylonian captivity of the Judeans in 570BC.
    Not the first religion, it's generally accepted to be the predecessor of the abrahamic religions.

    Btw, I think I've found a way to make you understand why such religious thinking is dangerous:

    you believe that the bible was given to us by god. You believe it is absolute, perfect truth and you live your life by it. It would be very difficult and maybe impossible to make you do something that went against the bible. And that's fine as long as the bible was actually given by god.

    But what about all the other thousands of religions that are wrong? What about all the billions of people who are just as devoted as you but are devoted to books that they think are absolute truth but actually aren't? Could it not be very dangerous for them to be living their lives based on such misconceptions?


  • #95
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    finally something we can agree on. Although you didn't have that type of schooling. Other religions were mentioned but christianity was always the main one.

    Yes, I realise that.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    There is no evidence because if there was evidence debates such as these would no longer be happening. Unlike religious people, generally when secular people are presented with compelling evidence that something is true they accept it. However no such evidence has yet been presented

    Actually, if there is evidence by indication, these debates would be happening precisely because of that. If the evidence we have of God can only indicate and not absolutely prove His existence, it is more evidence that implies God's existence rather than proves it. The ultimate way you will see God for yourself is if you ask with a full heart, and ask Him to come into your life, and to repent of your sins through Jesus Christ. That is the only way you will experience God. It is my spiritual walk with God that I've had since I have broken down the barriers stopping me from believing that is the most convincing to me of His existence.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You're missing the point!!!!!. Please try to understand my point. I am not likening christianity to racism. You said parents should be allowed teach their children anything and I asked if you think they should be allowed teach racism. That does not say anything against christianity, it only says something against the idea that someone should be allowed teach their children whatever they want. Your refusal to address my question says to me that you only think parents should be allowed teach their children things that you think are morally right and not "anything"

    It would be illadvised to teach their children about racism, and I don't agree with it. However there is no relevance in discussing this. I don't see quite frankly why you brought it up. This is probably within their rights if they can respect hate speech laws legally.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You said it's not "considered" fiction. I responded that many people do consider it fiction, which is true.

    Well it isn't. Go and look in your bookshop and see where they put the Bible.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You can keep saying that over and over again but it won't make it true. As far as I can see, your version of "understand correctly" means "rationalise and twist the meaning until it seems like there are no contradictions or until it fits your particular view"

    This is getting tiring. If you don't believe this interpretation, how about you go and ask other Christians, go to the Christianity forum, and go to your local church if you are that distrustful of me. I'm not "rationalising and twisting" anything. I showed you Jeremiah 31:31-34 clearly saying that there would be a new covenant between mankind and God, which differed from the Old. I also showed you that Jesus said that He had not come to abolish but fulfil concerning the Torah (Matthew 5:17). It is up to you to ask other Christians if you don't believe me.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    What's the difference exactly? Please don't say "coercion" because as I've already said, positive re-enforcement works just as well as has been amply demonstrated throughout history. Is it only brainwashing if what they're saying isn't true?

    The difference is that things are always going to be passed from parent to child even if it isn't communicated through words. Even traditional family recipes, right down to language, right down to turn of phrase. These things are all passed from parent to child. Even if a parent practices their faith the children might gain an interest in it, even if it isn't directly taught. It isn't the same as brainwashing no, people are predisposed to several things throughout their lives from their parents, from their peers, from the media from society. So, no, I don't consider it brainwashing and it's a stretch to consider it brainwashing.
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Well based on the fact that only a relatively tiny number of people convert and the overwhelming majority don't I think the evidence disagrees with you there.

    Quite a large portion do actually. Estimates fluctuate a bit, but it is certainly a situation which thousands find themselves in each year in the world.

    Anyway Sam, I'm bowing out of this discussion. The main reason is, you think you know everything there is to be known about Christians and Christianity. You have preconceptions in your mind about how it is and how Christian interpretation works in relation to how the Old Testament develops onto the New Testament, a rather typical view of the Bible from a Christian theological perspective. There is nothing you seem to want to learn from me, as such I would have to deem this discussion fruitless.

    Peace and good luck.


  • #96
    Blue_Wolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Blue_Wolf


    They should make quoting a sport. Jakass and Sam Vimes you guys should really compete. I nearly got a panic attack as I scrolled on for hours through one response! :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Actually, if there is evidence by indication, these debates would be happening precisely because of that. If the evidence we have of God can only indicate and not absolutely prove His existence, it is more evidence that implies God's existence rather than proves it.
    The problem there is that only religious people look at the fact of sodom's existence as indication of god's existence. Secular people are perfectly willing to accept that sodom might have existed but see no correlation between that and the existence of god. People have been saying "god did it" throughout history and nowadays we're proving them wrong time and time again. Just because sodom existed too long ago to adequately prove it was destroyed by an earthquake doesn't imply that god did it. It implies that people were doing the same thing they've always done, attributing natural events to god.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It would be illadvised to teach their children about racism, and I don't agree with it. However there is no relevance in discussing this. I don't see quite frankly why you brought it up.
    I brought it up because you must now retract your statement that parents should be allowed teach their children whatever they want (unless you're religious and are used to denying the obvious)


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is getting tiring. If you don't believe this interpretation, how about you go and ask other Christians, go to the Christianity forum, and go to your local church if you are that distrustful of me. I'm not "rationalising and twisting" anything. I showed you Jeremiah 31:31-34 clearly saying that there would be a new covenant between mankind and God, which differed from the Old. I also showed you that Jesus said that He had not come to abolish but fulfil concerning the Torah (Matthew 5:17). It is up to you to ask other Christians if you don't believe me.
    I'd say a lot of christians would feel the same way as you about it but I'd like the opinion of someone who isn't biased towards wanting it to mean something. (which might well include many christians who are capable of looking at it rationally) I know what it means and I know what it's generally accepted to mean
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The difference is that things are always going to be passed from parent to child even if it isn't communicated through words. Even traditional family recipes, right down to language, right down to turn of phrase. These things are all passed from parent to child. Even if a parent practices their faith the children might gain an interest in it, even if it isn't directly taught. It isn't the same as brainwashing no, people are predisposed to several things throughout their lives from their parents, from their peers, from the media from society. So, no, I don't consider it brainwashing and it's a stretch to consider it brainwashing.
    If racism is passed down in that manner is it brainwashing
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Anyway Sam, I'm bowing out of this discussion. The main reason is, you think you know everything there is to be known about Christians and Christianity. You have preconceptions in your mind about how it is and how Christian interpretation works in relation to how the Old Testament develops onto the New Testament, a rather typical view of the Bible from a Christian theological perspective. There is nothing you seem to want to learn from me, as such I would have to deem this discussion fruitless.

    Peace and good luck.
    I would be delighted for you to prove me wrong, I'd fcuking love if there was an all powerful ever loving god watching over me, but unfortunately all you've given is the same faulty logic and propaganda that always comes out in these debates. I wouldn't say that I am any more unshakeable in my beliefs than you, in fact much less so. Just like you, I came here so you could learn from me and not the other way around. I wasn't expecting to be proven wrong and I wasn't.

    Really I should bow out too because no matter what I say and no matter how thoroughly I prove it, if your bible says something else you will not accept it. Your standard of proof is far higher than mine, I would have to overrule God!


  • #98
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Blue_Wolf wrote: »
    They should make quoting a sport. Jakass and Sam Vimes you guys should really compete. I nearly got a panic attack as I scrolled on for hours through one response! :eek:

    Quoting isn't a sport!??!?

    I thought I was going to win a prize :(


  • #99
    Blue_Wolf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 861 ✭✭✭Blue_Wolf


    Oh sorry were you mislead? Eh would a gold star make ya feel better? :D


  • #100
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Blue_Wolf wrote: »
    Oh sorry were you mislead? Eh would a gold star make ya feel better? :D

    yes it would :(


  • #101
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    I've not been reading this discussion recently, so could anyone tell me if we're decided whether God (or gods) exists or not?

    Personally, I'm a bit peed off; I'd managed to corner ChocolateSauce into an argumentative trap and she just dropped out of the discussion. No fun :(


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement