Being stopped in the street to talk about "Jesus Christ".

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

partyatmygaff

Forest Master wrote: »

What "indicatory" [not a real word, BTW, but you're used to made-up stuff] evidence? Be specific, man!

Indicatory is the adjective related to the noun Indicator.

http://mw2.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/indicatory

philologos

Veles wrote: »

you amuse me:)

I'm glad that I do something anyway.

It's interesting to turn the questioning around though. I've presented many arguments about Christianity on this forum and on others over the past few years. It might be interesting for a change to turn the tables and ask what reasoning do atheists have for not believing that there is a God other than claiming that there is no evidence.

Forest Master

This is like banging your head against a retarded stupid stubborn wall, that will never get it.

RussellTuring

I think we were created for a good purpose but we lost our way. It doesn't mean that we cannot at times do what is good, but it does mean that for as long as we choose not to reflect God that we are prone to sin even if we can adhere to His standards momentarily.

I suppose it's a fairly common theme in religion that we are inherently bad or at least have some defect.

I'm heading out now. I'll continue this tomorrow.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm glad that I do something anyway.

It's interesting to turn the questioning around though. I've presented many arguments about Christianity on this forum and on others over the past few years. It might be interesting for a change to turn the tables and ask what reasoning do atheists have for not believing that there is a God other than claiming that there is no evidence.

Do you believe in a flying spaghetti monster? If so, why/why not?

Forest Master

Jakkass wrote: »

what reasoning do atheists have for not believing that there is a God other than claiming that there is no evidence.

Seriously - if that reason isn't enough for you, then you're a lost cause. And how can there possibly be any other reason? That is THE reason.

I believe in magic squirrels that can shoot lasers from their eyes and kill people with their golden spiked tails - what's your reason for not believing in them too? And you can't just say "because there's no evidence at all that they exist" - that's a stupid reason...

philologos

Interestingly Forest Master other atheists if you look into the philosophy of religion have presented positive arguments against God's existence all of which are actually much more interesting and compelling than anything I've seen posted or presented by the new-atheist school of thinking on boards.ie.

Why do you think it is unreasonable for God to exist bar saying that there is "no evidence". It would make the discussion much more interesting on your part and it prevents you from taking the lazy option.

Forest Master

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly Forest Master other atheists if you look into the philosophy of religion have presented positive arguments against God's existence all of which are actually much more interesting and compelling than anything I've seen posted or presented by the new-atheist school of thinking on boards.ie.

Why do you think it is unreasonable for God to exist bar saying that there is "no evidence". It would make the discussion much more interesting on your part and it prevents you from taking the lazy option.

If God exists:

Why does he give Aids to babies?
Why did he kill all those Japanese people a few weeks ago?
Why is he so homophobic?
What's purgatory? I hear about it from the church, but don't see anything about it in the Bible.
If we're created in his perfect image, why do we have a blind spot?
Why did he make me an atheist?
Why did he make so many priests pedophiles?
If God created the Earth 5000 years ago, how do you account for evolution?

I could go on and on...
etc...

Forest Master

Jakkass wrote: »

Why do you think it is unreasonable for God to exist bar saying that there is "no evidence".

Why don't you humour me & answer this.

Do you believe in a flying spaghetti monster? If so, why/why not?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Interestingly Forest Master other atheists if you look into the philosophy of religion have presented positive arguments against God's existence all of which are actually much more interesting and compelling than anything I've seen posted or presented by the new-atheist school of thinking on boards.ie.

Why do you think it is unreasonable for God to exist bar saying that there is "no evidence". It would make the discussion much more interesting on your part and it prevents you from taking the lazy option.

Ok, I get it, because it is an easy (yet valid) option, you want us to not use it.

Fair enough. Here's some points for you.

The many faiths of the world are at odds with each other about essential principles of their religions, there is no universal foundation.

The accounts of history in religious texts are contradictory to archaeological evidence.

The majority (if not all) of religions promote prejudice against a specified group of people, this supports an explored hypo-theorem that many if not all religions were created by man at some point to promote a groups particular prejudices. For example, the Catholic church thinks all homosexuals will burn in Hell. This for me debunks your "morale compass given to us by a creator" arguments, to persecute any minority for a choice of lifestyle based on religious believes is in itself evil. I'm not Gay, but I have friends that are, what have they done to deserve this treatment worldwide?

Chuck Stone

You cannot cite the scientific method and then use it's non-applicability as a method of forcing people to prove gods do not exist.

They simply do not exist - and if they did and were detectable by scientific methods they'd instantaneously cease to be gods.

'Prove god(s) doesn't exist' might just be one of the stupidest widely abused and absurd questions used by supporters of superstition.

Forest Master

...and the replies suddenly stop once they're asked to prove a flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist.

Although, in fairness, they're probably just at mass having a go a homosexuals & bastard babies, and will be back online later with a great reply.

chickenbutt

In college (US) there'd always be evangelicals passing out copies of the New Testament, fliers about God and your afterlife, preachers standing on the sidewalks shouting about how we're all going to hell (seriously once there was a guy who shouted at a girl passing by that she was going to hell because she was wearing pants). Even groups came with their little kids chasing you down with their propoganda... Once a year a local group would come on campus and have massive posters up with dead baby fetuses next to dimes in an attempt to stop girls from getting abortions. It's disgusting and every so often a shouting match would spark up between the evangelicals and the students, but I just ignored it. No reason to start a fight with someone who has no intention of listening to your point of view. (Although it was never nice to see that crap on your way to class at 8 in the morning). Ignore it and go on your merry way. Most of them were nice enough people so I just said hello and went to class. After awhile you figured out where they would be and just avoided those areas. (I went to a state university in the south where this isn't really anything new/surprising).

Interesting few pages there... The "lack of evidence is a lazy reason for being an atheist" thing being something I never thought Jakkass would ever come out with.

Now, once he answers the Flying Spaghetti Monster question, we can move on with the discussion.

Forest Master

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting few pages there... The "lack of evidence is a lazy reason for being an atheist" thing being something I never thought Jakkass would ever come out with.

Now, once he answers the Flying Spaghetti Monster question, we can move on with the discussion.

Yep - but he can't just say he doesn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster due to "lack of evidence" - that's not even a real reason! He has to prove it's non-existence, and the onus isn't even on me to prove it exists.

So even though a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a stupid notion that makes no sense and there have never been any sightings or any proof whatsoever for it existing, he still needs to prove it doesn't exist - and if he can't do that, then by his logic, it must exist.
Retarded logic, innit? Welcome to the last 3 pages...

Chuck Stone

Oops. I found a photograph of a flying spaghetti monster.

http://www.google.ie/imgres?imgurl=http://www.treygarrison.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/flying-spaghetti-monster.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.treygarrison.com/category/life/page/3/&usg=__HAmIhRgf5a40DpG3WWOzGmddHWM=&h=375&w=500&sz=79&hl=en&start=0&sig2=hx0ZGFSyPjacAPk34t0-Zw&zoom=1&tbnid=kk-cb65H0ElxLM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=172&ei=igO0TciKOdGLhQeOob3jDw&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dflying%2Bspaghetti%2Bmonster%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D1143%26bih%3D549%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=276&vpy=108&dur=10217&hovh=194&hovw=259&tx=117&ty=140&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0

All HAIL THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER!

dpe

Haven't ploughed through the whole thread. I've been stopped a couple of times recently, both times near Heuston by clean cut Americans in suits. I assume Mormons? When I was younger I used to love giving these types grief (I remember really taking apart a Chinese guy who was dribbling his god-bothering to us on a bus in Manchester once), but these days I can't be arsed. To be honest there's no point, especially with Mormons who are busy going around baptising everyone in absentia anyway.

Forest Master

Forest Master wrote: »

Yep - but he can't just say he doesn't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster due to "lack of evidence" - that's not even a real reason! He has to prove it's non-existence, and the onus isn't even on me to prove it exists.

So even though a Flying Spaghetti Monster is a stupid notion that makes no sense and there have never been any sightings or any proof whatsoever for it existing, he still needs to prove it doesn't exist - and if he can't do that, then by his logic, it must exist.
Retarded logic, innit? Welcome to the last 3 pages...

I'm looking forward to the reasoning given... Unless he uses the "I believe in one true God and that doesn't allow room for a flying spaghetti monster" excuse.

If they can give an answer without that, I'll be impressed.

philologos

Deleted User wrote: »

Interesting few pages there... The "lack of evidence is a lazy reason for being an atheist" thing being something I never thought Jakkass would ever come out with.

I thought a new approach to the question was needed. It's too easy to parrot no evidence, and this argument shouldn't be a one-way interrogation session.

Besides, to Christians it is fundamentally unconvincing also. I want to hear something of value from the other side of the court.

As for the FSM question, it is simply a case that there is better reason to believe in the Gospel because there is more evidence for it being true. Evidence which I've presented time and time again on boards if you take a mere search.

If I'm putting effort into this discussion, it's high time that ye did as well

philologos

Sacramento wrote: »

The many faiths of the world are at odds with each other about essential principles of their religions, there is no universal foundation.

Atheism is in disagreement with the vast majority of other forms of thought in the world. Yet I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't say that because this is the case that it cannot be true?

Sacramento wrote: »

The accounts of history in religious texts are contradictory to archaeological evidence.

Funny enough archaeology in both Israel and Jordan concerning the Bible tends to disagree with you. Just decades ago people had the audacity to say that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century. Now Nazareth has been confirmed to exist at that time. Just one of many findings over the last few decades.

Sacramento wrote: »

The majority (if not all) of religions promote prejudice against a specified group of people, this supports an explored hypo-theorem that many if not all religions were created by man at some point to promote a groups particular prejudices. For example, the Catholic church thinks all homosexuals will burn in Hell. This for me debunks your "morale compass given to us by a creator" arguments, to persecute any minority for a choice of lifestyle based on religious believes is in itself evil. I'm not Gay, but I have friends that are, what have they done to deserve this treatment worldwide?

I'm not coming from a RCC perspective, but from a Christian perspective you are wrong.

Christians don't believe that people who have same-sex attraction are going to burn in hell any more than anyone else is. Anyone can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Christian morality would suggest that the place for sexuality is in marriage. This has similar implications for me as a single heterosexual male as it does for anyone with same-sex attraction.

I think any hatred towards LGBT people is unacceptable largely because of my Christian belief rather than in spite of it.

Even if what you are saying is true this isn't an argument against the truth of Christianity, it is an argument as to why you don't like Christianity. Both are different things.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheism is in disagreement with the vast majority of other forms of thought in the world. Yet I'm fairly sure that you wouldn't say that because this is the case that it cannot be true?

By definition, other forms of thought are as you describe them. OTHER FORMS OF THOUGHT. Of course they'd be different. Religions around the world share a common theme, with differences within their core beliefs that have been so at odds, wars begin.

Jakkass wrote: »

Funny enough archaeology in both Israel and Jordan concerning the Bible tends to disagree with you. Just decades ago people had the audacity to say that Nazareth didn't exist in the first century. Now Nazareth has been confirmed to exist at that time. Just one of many findings over the last few decades.

You're picking and choosing here, there is no archaeological evidence for many things the bible claims, the only "evidence" you can quote, are the actual bible verses themselves, which believe it or not, are not forms of evidence. I'm not talking about "there was a Nazareth, therefore it's all right!" I'm talking Noah's Ark, Jesus rising from the dead, Moses parting the sea and so on...

Do you believe the Noah's ark nonsense? Because it is in direct conflict with archaeological evidence and findings. If you don't though, I'll give you some other examples.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not coming from a RCC perspective, but from a Christian perspective you are wrong.

Christians don't believe that people who have same-sex attraction are going to burn in hell any more than anyone else is. Anyone can be saved through faith in Jesus Christ. Christian morality would suggest that the place for sexuality is in marriage. This has similar implications for me as a single heterosexual male as it does for anyone with same-sex attraction.

I think any hatred towards LGBT people is unacceptable largely because of my Christian belief rather than in spite of it.

Even if what you are saying is true this isn't an argument against the truth of Christianity, it is an argument as to why you don't like Christianity. Both are different things.

No, it's an argument against your morale compass argument. And with Christian belief, it's homosexual sex acts that are considered wrong/evil/immoral by the majority of Christians, not the minority. So Christianity on a whole is against it more than anything else. And religion as a whole is almost 90% against it, not just in a "we don't much like it" way, in a "we will persecute/kill/condemn you to hell" way.

You do realise that you're the lazy one here don't you? By saying that "people cannot use the no evidence argument because it's easy", you are taking the lazy approach by not addressing that very valid argument. That's why I consider your argument to be laughable.

*Mormon watch update*

Some just called to my door just now! In the Hartstown area right now. The same couple that stopped me on the way to the train station, Blossom and Suity McTie.

Chuck Stone

Jakkass wrote: »

As for the FSM question, it is simply a case that there is better reason to believe in the Gospel because there is more evidence for it being true. Evidence which I've presented time and time again on boards if you take a mere search.

The gospel was written by human beings.

In before: god told them to.

In before: no such thing as gods

In before: you can't prove there's no gods

In before : you can't cite the scientific method and then demand someone use it to disprove non existance of flying spaghetti monsters

yadda yadda yadda

Glenster

I dont particularly like being stopped in the street to talk about anything. by anyone. I'm busy.

Glenster

Glenster wrote: »

I dont particularly like being stopped in the street to talk about anything. by anyone. I'm busy.

How do you react to them showing up at your door?

strobe

Jakkass wrote: »

Why do you think it is unreasonable for God to exist bar saying that there is "no evidence". It would make the discussion much more interesting on your part and it prevents you from taking the lazy option.

Onchocerciasis.

partyatmygaff

Forest Master wrote: »

And PAMG trying to use love in his/her analogy, by saying "ah yes, but how do you know anyone loves you?" and "how do you know love is real, or even exists?" really is clutching at straws, and doesn't even hold water as an argument itself. I'll debunk his theory as follows:
Love is an emotion that we know exists because we ourselves feel it for other people/things - therefore WE KNOW it exists - therefore, we don't have to prove that someone else feels it for us to know it exists. We already know, because we're capable of feeling it ourselves.

We all know that love as an emotion exists. That is not the question however.

I am asking you "Does a specific 'instance' of love for you exist in the mind of the other?". There is a big difference between that and "Does love in general exist?" as the latter is obvious. I am asking you how exactly can you be certain that someone else holds any love for you in particular. Them saying "I love you" is not enough. That isn't proof as for all you know they could be deceiving you. What absolute and undeniable proof can the other person provide for you to prove their sincerity? Can they give you a full transcription of the mind so that you can examine their thoughts and their emotions?

As an aside, I have a challenge for you and your purely rational mind. Find a person who says that you're the love of their life. Found that person? Good.

Now, I would like you to prove to me that that person actually loves you. I need solid and absolute proof and nothing less. Once you have found said evidence of an instance of love designated for you in the mind of that other person, I would like you to quantify the level of that specific instance of love and its development and growth over time. Then I would like you to quantify all other instances of love that said person has 'running' in their mind. Following that, I would like you to chart your findings and present them to AH. Together we will compare and contrast the levels of the other instances of love with the instance of love dedicated to you and then we will use this comparative analysis to determine whether or not the other person actually views you as the "love of their life". However, if you cannot find solid, absolute or even just quantifiable evidence then I am afraid to say that by your way of thinking you are deluded and/or mentally insufficient to believe in something so baseless in solid fact.

Seaneh

Forest Master wrote: »

How do you expect him to discuss anything with someone who sends telepathic message to a wizard in the sky? It's madness & fruitless!

You can't have any sort of logicical or common-sense based discussion with anyone who believes in such fantasy nonsense.

So the head of the human genome project (Pentecostal Christian, prays in tongues, believes in miracles), the man who developed the theory of the primeval atom (a Jesuit priest), Albert Einstein (Deist) who said "I want to know how God created this world. I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know his thoughts. The rest are details.".

Three of the most respected men in their fields in the last 100 years.
Three men utterly convinced that God exists and created the universe.
The first two believe in a Personal God, the third in a God that creates the whole without worrying about the parts.

You couldn't have a logical conversation with them?

Get off your high horse, the idea that science and belief in a God are not compatible is utter nonsense and it's people like you who are not capable of carrying out a logical conversation on the subject because you have this retarded view that you are somehow automatically more enlightened or intelligent than deists and theists just because you are atheist.

Helix

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm glad to know that by your own admission there is no reason for being an atheist bar spouting off about there being "no evidence".

hold on. are you honestly attempting an argument that amounts to "LOL! you don't accept something for no reason other than there's absolutely no proof!"

seriously?

if i tell you that i can fly, but i can never show me, do you believe me or do you weigh it all up and decide that its probably a fair assumption i cant, despite the fact that you can never actually know for sure?