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

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…303304306308309…327

Comments

  • Options
    #9152
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I'm out. This is pigeon chess.

    "says the pigeon as he flies away"


    If you want to deny the moon landings this is not the thread for that.


  • Options
    #9153
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    If you want to deny the moon landings this is not the thread for that.

    We have recent proof of the moon landings. Where is the recent proof that God exists?.


  • Options
    #9154
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    "says the pigeon as he flies away"


    If you want to deny the moon landings this is not the thread for that.

    Oh dear god you Googled pigeon chess and went with the first result, didn't you?


  • Options
    #9155
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    If 'the bible says so' is your only evidence of god then I'll need some convincing.


  • Options
    #9156
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Oh dear god you Googled pigeon chess and went with the first result, didn't you?

    Maybe it was divine inspiration?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9157
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    We have recent proof of the moon landings. Where is the recent proof that God exists?.

    Seriously! you had to wait until there was recent proof of the moon landings before you believed that man landed on the moon :eek::eek::eek:

    I guess I really didn't know who or what I was dealing with.

    Of Course Man Landed On The Moon. I was there - I saw it. On the Telly. In 1969. What proof do you need !!!

    Is my telling you man landed on the moon not good enough for you now you need proof!!!


  • Options
    #9158
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Oh dear god you Googled pigeon chess and went with the first result, didn't you?

    Second, actually


  • Options
    #9159
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Maybe it was divine inspiration?

    I was told the first was a bad one - this isn't the creationist thread.


  • Options
    #9160
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    Seriously! you had to wait until there was recent proof of the moon landings before you believed that man landed on the moon :eek::eek::eek:

    I guess I really didn't know who or what I was dealing with.

    Of Course Man Landed On The Moon. I was there - I saw it. On the Telly. In 1969. What proof do you need !!!

    Is my telling you man landed on the moon not good enough for you now you need proof!!!

    Have you seen God at all?
    Neither I nor anyone else asked for evidence of moon landings. We can access the evidence ourselves. You brought it up. Man landing on the moon is a verifiable event. God existing is not.


  • Options
    #9161
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    eviltwin wrote: »
    If 'the bible says so' is your only evidence of god then I'll need some convincing.

    It isn't. I'm also convinced by science and logic, as well as just looking around and marveling at Gods creation and the creatures and people he created, especially atheists. They prove free will in action and hence prove God exists, for if God did not exist there would be no atheists.

    Someone else will no doubt point to a recent posting where I said that atheists do not exist which is a misrepresentation as I actually suggested that atheists probably do not exist and this was based on studies performed by scientists who are investigating why people believe in God and are those who call themselves atheists really agnostic. If the latter then it is true that atheists do not exist as all atheists are actually agnostic but some like categorizing themselves with the term atheist even though atheist does not describe what they actually believe. Or may be it does. You have no Bible of your own or any other baseline so it is quite difficult to tell.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9162
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    Have you seen God at all?

    Not directly, but I have seen His work.
    lazygal wrote: »
    Neither I nor anyone else asked for evidence of moon landings. We can access the evidence ourselves. You brought it up. Man landing on the moon is a verifiable event. God existing is not.

    Pigeon chess man brought it up, indirectly I admit.

    God existing is a verifiable because of Jesus Christ.


  • Options
    #9163
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    It isn't. I'm also convinced by science and logic, as well as just looking around and marveling at Gods creation and the creatures and people he created, especially atheists. They prove free will in action and hence prove God exists, for if God did not exist there would be no atheists.

    Someone else will no doubt point to a recent posting where I said that atheists do not exist which is a misrepresentation as I actually suggested that atheists probably do not exist and this was based on studies performed by scientists who are investigating why people believe in God and are those who call themselves atheists really agnostic. If the latter then it is true that atheists do not exist as all atheists are actually agnostic but some like categorizing themselves with the term atheist even though atheist does not describe what that actually believe. Or may be it does. You have no Bible of your own or any other baseline so it is quite difficult to tell.

    So do atheists exist or not? Your post claims they do and they don't. A bit like the bible, it makes somewhat contradictory claims.


  • Options
    #9164
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    Not directly, but I have seen His work.



    Pigeon chess man brought it up, indirectly I admit.

    God existing is a verifiable because of Jesus Christ.

    What work has he done, exactly? How does the existence of a man who died thousands of years ago prove God exists?


  • Options
    #9165
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    What work has he done, exactly?

    He created the Universe. If He didn't perhaps you can tell me who did or explain how the universe came to be without God.

    He created Life. If He didn't perhaps you can tell me who did or explain how the life came to be without God.

    He created man with a creative capacity and we have what we call technology which fits with man being created in the image and likeness of God. Otherwise explain why man is the most creative creature on the planet when no other is comparable.
    lazygal wrote: »
    How does the existence of a man who died thousands of years ago prove God exists?

    Because that man claimed to be God and proved it by His actions.


  • Options
    #9166
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Festus wrote: »
    He created the Universe. If He didn't perhaps you can tell me who did or explain how the universe came to be without God.

    He created Life. If He didn't perhaps you can tell me who did or explain how the life came to be without God.

    He created man with a creative capacity and we have what we call technology which fits with man being created in the image and likeness of God. Otherwise explain why man is the most creative creature on the planet when no other is comparable.



    Because that man claimed to be God and proved it by His actions.

    All man, no creative women at all? How did Jesus prove he was his own father?


  • Options
    #9167
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    lazygal wrote: »
    All man, no creative women at all?

    I was using man in the sense of Humans but if pedantism is your only attack I accept that. Lord knows I use it often enough myself especially when if comes to the definition of atheism. Can't help it - I'm a purist.
    lazygal wrote: »
    How did Jesus prove he was his own father?

    By being conceived by the Holy Spirit.


  • Options
    #9168
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    Four books record Christs resurrection and they are the Gospels.

    They're still just books. Books making extraordinary claims.


  • Options
    #9169
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    They're still just books. Books making extraordinary claims.

    The Bible stands and as the Bible is a Bible it cannot defend itself other than by being the Bible, or rather it defends itself by virtue of what it contains, the word of God. If you disagree with what the Bible states make your case.


  • Options
    #9170
    EoghanIRL
    Registered Users Posts: 4,080 ✭✭✭EoghanIRL


    If god is benevolent and loving , and the pope is gods representative on earth then why aren't homosexuals allowed partake in communion and other religious rituals. Why are they condemned by god ?

    So "love one another but not gays " - god


  • Options
    #9171
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    The Bible stands and as the Bible is a Bible it cannot defend itself other than by being the Bible, or rather it defends itself by virtue of what it contains, the word of God. If you disagree with what the Bible states make your case.

    It says a man levitated over water, offers no evidence. Three books say basically the same thing, but all of them proceed from the assumption that any and all miracles attributed to Jesus are true. No neutral or sceptical sources corroborate, the event has never been recorded in any other medium, it has never been replicated except by trickery.

    I guess this is better than the Plato thing. That was terrible.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9172
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    If god is benevolent and loving , and the pope is gods representative on earth then why aren't homosexuals allowed partake in communion and other religious rituals. Why are they condemned by god ?

    Homosexuals are not condemned by God. Homosexual activity is.
    EoghanIRL wrote: »
    So "love one another " - god

    I fixed the straw man for you. Hope you don't mind.

    We are called to love homosexuals as persons. We are not called to treat them as sexual objects.


  • Options
    #9173
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    The book stands and as the book is a book it cannot defend itself other than by being the book. If you disagree with what the books state make your case.

    How can one "disagree" with what the books state?

    The Bible is just a fictional story that takes place in a version of reality. It is not a historical document. The Bible itself does not claim to be historical fact but rather the people "marketing" The Bible claim that the story contained within is "real".

    It's like asking people to make a case for why they disagree with Star Wars or Cinderella. It's not neccessary. They are just stories. The Bible, Jesus Christ, all that stuff, it's just a story. The only difference is that George Lucas isn't shouting from the rooftops that Luke Skywalker really did master the force and defeat evil to bring peace to the galaxy and "you can't prove that it didn't happen, so there".

    You don't even have to believe that it's a historical document to follow, or live by, the lessons contained within the book. So why even bother?

    How is The Bible different from, say, Spiderman comics? Spiderman stories take place in a real world setting (New York) and at times even reference actual events that happen in the real world (9/11, for example).

    OK, I know that we can safely assume that there is no Spiderman in New York and I think the writers would be OK with admitting that. Doesn't worry you AT ALL that The Bible is conveniently set in a time when it's events cannot be verified as historical AND the writers/people who profit most from the book insist that it's real "and you can't prove it isn't so there"?


  • Options
    #9174
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    It says a man levitated over water, offers no evidence.

    eye witness account.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Three books say basically the same thing,

    corroborating evidence.
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    but all of them proceed from the assumption that any and all miracles attributed to Jesus are true.

    is eye witness account assumption?
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    No neutral or sceptical sources corroborate, the event has never been recorded in any other medium, it has never been replicated except by trickery.

    The event has not been recorded in any other medium because that was the medium of the time. If you want a different medium from 2000 years ago can you offer suggestions?

    what kind of trickery? the kind of trickery available 2000 years ago or different trickery from more recent technolo?
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I guess this is better than the Plato thing. That was terrible.

    Can you prove Plato existed? Did Plato exist? What evidence to you have for the existence of Plato? If the evidence for Plato is lacking should we believe that Plato existed?


  • Options
    #9175
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Can someone explain to Festus why eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence there is? And that the gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies? I'd do it myself but he and I have had a falling out.


  • Options
    #9176
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    Doesn't worry you AT ALL that The Bible is conveniently set in a time when it's events cannot be verified as historical AND the writers/people who profit most from the book insist that it's real "and you can't prove it isn't so there"?

    I have removed the claims that you cannot, or will not, support regarding it being fiction etc. Hope you don't mind.

    As for the quote that remains - Bible scholars would disagree, and I would go with the Bible scholars over your assertion.


  • Options
    #9177
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Can someone explain to Festus why eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence there is? And that the gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies? I'd do it myself but he and I have had a falling out.

    There is no direct eyewitness evidence as far as I am aware


  • Options
    #9178
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    RikuoAmero wrote: »
    Can someone explain to Festus why eyewitness testimony is considered the least reliable form of evidence there is? And that the gospels aren't eyewitness testimonies? I'd do it myself but he and I have had a falling out.

    either you are done with me or you are not. calling on proxies is being cowardly.


  • Options
    #9179
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    Homosexuals are not condemned by God. Homosexual activity is.

    Why would God condemn homosexual activity?

    I assume the answer is something to do with sex only being used for reproduction.

    God kind of encourages us to enjoy food and drink though and not just drink water only when thirsty and eat only when hungry. We also talk about using our eyes and ears to wonder at, and enjoy, Gods creation when really eyes and ears should just be used to recieve sights and sounds with no judgement at all on the value of sights and sounds.

    Isn't God quite a contradictory character when he encourages us to enjoy our senses and the company of others and food and drink and Love and all aspects of his creation but certain, seemingly arbitrary, aspects of that are forbidden?

    Surely he could have just designed the reproductive system differently, by not making sex a pleasurable activity, and the problem would not arise?

    Condemning homosexual activity sounds like backtracking on Gods part, don't you think? Like he made it so we would enjoy sex so much that we'd want to do it often enough to create 100 billion humans in 6, 000 years but then he had to impose restrictions because once in a while people would use this gift in a way that was unintended (and pretty harmless, lets be honest).


  • Options
    #9180
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    It says a man levitated over water, offers no evidence.
    eye witness account.

    It itself is the eye witness account. The eye witness account offers no supporting evidence.
    Festus wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    Three books say basically the same thing,
    corroborating evidence.

    Of a sort, as I said, but corroborating utterly flawlessly in a way that would suggest the witnesses agreed their story before writing. People have unreliable memories, especially for unexpected events, so we'd expect at least some minor conflicts in real eyewitness accounts.

    You can invoke miracles or divine something here but I think we both know that kinda undermines the historicity line you're currently trying to take.
    Festus wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    but all of them proceed from the assumption that any and all miracles attributed to Jesus are true.
    is eye witness account assumption?

    Usually, yes.
    Festus wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    The event has not been recorded in any other medium because that was the medium of the time. If you want a different medium from 2000 years ago can you offer suggestions?

    what kind of trickery? the kind of trickery available 2000 years ago or different trickery from more recent technolo?

    Irrelevant, I mentioned it only as a caveat.
    Festus wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote:
    Can you prove Plato existed? Did Plato exist? What evidence to you have for the existence of Plato? If the evidence for Plato is lacking should we believe that Plato existed?

    Do you really not see the enormous logical hole in this line of argument?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9181
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    I have removed the claims that you cannot, or will not, support regarding it being fiction etc. Hope you don't mind.

    As for the quote that remains - Bible scholars would disagree, and I would go with the Bible scholars over your assertion.

    Why?

    I believe that there may be a God but I have absolute faith that The Bible is a work of fiction (although it is based in a real word setting).

    Are you saying that faith alone is not enough? Are you saying that I need more than just faith and belief to back up my claims?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement