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…304305307309310…327

Comments

  • Options
    #9182
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    There is no direct eyewitness evidence as far as I am aware

    Julius Caesar on January 11, 49BC crossed the Rubicon. Or did he?

    There are no eyewitness testimonies to that event so we can safely say it did not happen. Correct?

    I do not know what your classical education is, if any, but no doubt there are some with a classical education who are reading this thread. Perhaps they can verify if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon as described or not.

    St Matthew and St John were both Apostles and hence eye witnesses to Christs ministry., as well as authors of two of the Gospels. Please now consider yourself informed.


  • Options
    #9183
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    Julius Caesar on January 11, 49BC crossed the Rubicon. Or did he?

    There are no eyewitness testimonies to that event so we can safely say it did not happen. Correct?

    I do not know what your classical education is, if any, but no doubt there are some with a classical education who are reading this thread. Perhaps they can verify if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon as described or not.

    Does any source suggest he crossed it by walking over water?


  • Options
    #9184
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    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?

    If you believe that there may be a God then you must also believe that there may not be a God. In my experience sitting on the fence brings nothing but splinters and a sore bottom.

    I take it that your faith that the Bible is a fiction in your opinion is based on no evidence and hence blind faith. I do not subscribe to faith alone not least because it implies faith should be blind and that is foolish.


  • Options
    #9185
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    Julius Caesar on January 11, 49BC crossed the Rubicon. Or did he?

    There are no eyewitness testimonies to that event so we can safely say it did not happen. Correct?

    I do not know what your classical education is, if any, but no doubt there are some with a classical education who are reading this thread. Perhaps they can verify if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon as described or not.

    St Matthew and St John were both Apostles and hence eye witnesses to Christs ministry., as well as authors of two of the Gospels. Please now consider yourself informed.

    Did those apostles leave direct testimony ?


  • Options
    #9186
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Does any source suggest he crossed it by walking over water?

    You'll have to ask a Caesar scholar.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9187
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    Did those apostles leave direct testimony ?

    Yes


  • Options
    #9188
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    Yes

    where ?


  • Options
    #9189
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus 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?

    The existence or non-existence of Plato is not relevant though.

    The teachings, theories, the words of "Plato" are still relevant regardless of who they are attributed to and whether that person existed or not.

    Those teachings stand on thier own regardless of who we recognise as the original storyteller.

    The Bible, on the other hand, makes extraordinary claims that become invalidated if the existence of the storyteller is in doubt.


  • Options
    #9190
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    where ?

    In the New Testament.


  • Options
    #9191
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    In the New Testament.

    So no direct testimony then , just written 50 years after all the events ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9192
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    The existence or non-existence of Plato is not relevant though.

    I would have thought his existence relevant for some philosophers and mathematicians
    orubiru wrote: »
    The teachings, theories, the words of "Plato" are still relevant regardless of who they are attributed to and whether that person existed or not.

    If they do not belong to Plato who do they belong to? Surely that is of some historical relevance?
    orubiru wrote: »
    Those teachings stand on thier own regardless of who we recognise as the original storyteller.

    Why can the same not be said of the Bible?
    orubiru wrote: »
    The Bible, on the other hand, makes extraordinary claims that become invalidated if the existence of the storyteller is in doubt.

    Do you need me to point out how you have contradicted yourself?


  • Options
    #9193
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    So no direct testimony then , just written 50 years after all the events ?

    Direct testimony committed to paper after the events. No Sky News in those days, sorry. They worked much like many journalists work today, reporting events that happened years ago based on what has been passed orally and we are expected to believe them :)

    Given the state of journalism today I am inclined to agree that the veracity should be tested and questioned and for me the veracity of the Gospels has been tested and is the truth. Would that people would do the same today with the newspapers and other media.

    We still have to establish if Plato existed or if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon.


  • Options
    #9194
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    Direct testimony committed to paper after the events. No Sky News in those days, sorry. They worked much like many journalists work today, reporting events that happened years ago based on what has been passed orally and we are expected to believe them :)

    Given the state of journalism today I am inclined to agree that the veracity should be tested and for me the veracity of the Gospels has been tested and is the truth.

    We still have to establish if Plato existed or if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon.

    So it was just hearsay then and not direct testimony ?


  • Options
    #9195
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    We still have to establish if Plato existed or if Caesar actually crossed the Rubicon.

    You're suggesting that in order to agree that we dismiss the Bible as admissible evidence in this discussion, we also have to dismiss all of the works of Plato, and his contemporaries and all of the accounts of Caesar's campaigns?


  • Options
    #9196
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You're suggesting that in order to agree that we dismiss the Bible as admissible evidence in this discussion, we also have to dismiss all of the works of Plato, and his contemporaries and all of the accounts of Caesar's campaigns?

    Pretty much.


  • Options
    #9197
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    You're suggesting that in order to agree that we dismiss the Bible as admissible evidence in this discussion, we also have to dismiss all of the works of Plato, and his contemporaries and all of the accounts of Caesar's campaigns?
    Pretty much.

    I agree to these terms.


  • Options
    #9198
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    I agree to these terms.

    In what way. Are you dismissing all of history up to a certain point and if so what point or are you accepting that the Bible should be considered?


  • Options
    #9199
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    If you believe that there may be a God then you must also believe that there may not be a God. In my experience sitting on the fence brings nothing but splinters and a sore bottom.

    I take it that your faith that the Bible is a fiction in your opinion is based on no evidence and hence blind faith. I do not subscribe to faith alone not least because it implies faith should be blind and that is foolish.

    Not blind Faith. I have read a lot of literature on Gods and given the variety of Gods out there I cannot say for sure that the God I have chosen is the only God, or one of many or maybe even one aspect of a multi faceted God.

    So, when asked if I believe in God or not, I find that the most logical, and truest, answer possible is "maybe". It's not "sitting on the fence" as I know my time on Earth is finite so why commit fully to something as major and important as God when it/he/she/they may be false?

    The Bible, however, is a lot easier to deal with. I have read it and indeed even live by some of the principals taught within. It's NOT as important as choosing ones God. God would surely not mind if we followed the principles in His book without actually believing it was a factual document?

    In any case, I have been around long enough to know that historical documents normally contain figures, statistics, corroborated evidence and have a solid grounding in reality. Fiction generally contains amazing events, interesting characters, contradictions and plotholes.

    Intuition tells me that The Bible is not a documentation of real events. Discussion with other human beings confirms that belief, in my mind.

    The Bible is a good book with many interesting events and things to think about and learn from. However, believing it to be real is an unrealistic, and unnecessary leap.

    The Bible was not originally written in English so many things could have been lost in translation. It would seem false, to me, telling God that you believed the Bible word for word when He could reasonably say "Um, you've only read the translated version and they changed LOTS of things!" Like do people really think they could sneak "I believe The Bible is real" under Gods nose when God is fully aware that you didn't read the original version in its original language AND that you probably didn't fully understand ALL of it? Give me a break.


  • Options
    #9200
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    Not blind Faith. I have read a lot of literature on Gods and given the variety of Gods out there I cannot say for sure that the God I have chosen is the only God, or one of many or maybe even one aspect of a multi faceted God.

    So, when asked if I believe in God or not, I find that the most logical, and truest, answer possible is "maybe". It's not "sitting on the fence" as I know my time on Earth is finite so why commit fully to something as major and important as God when it/he/she/they may be false?

    The Bible, however, is a lot easier to deal with. I have read it and indeed even live by some of the principals taught within. It's NOT as important as choosing ones God. God would surely not mind if we followed the principles in His book without actually believing it was a factual document?

    In any case, I have been around long enough to know that historical documents normally contain figures, statistics, corroborated evidence and have a solid grounding in reality. Fiction generally contains amazing events, interesting characters, contradictions and plotholes.

    Intuition tells me that The Bible is not a documentation of real events. Discussion with other human beings confirms that belief, in my mind.

    The Bible is a good book with many interesting events and things to think about and learn from. However, believing it to be real is an unrealistic, and unnecessary leap.

    The Bible was not originally written in English so many things could have been lost in translation. It would seem false, to me, telling God that you believed the Bible word for word when He could reasonably say "Um, you've only read the translated version and they changed LOTS of things!" Like do people really think they could sneak "I believe The Bible is real" under Gods nose when God is fully aware that you didn't read the original version in its original language AND that you probably didn't fully understand ALL of it? Give me a break.

    You can satisfy yourself as to whether or not the Bible is true and whether or not anything has been lost in translation.

    Given that God claims the Bible to be His word and inspired by Him there is merit to this exercise.


  • Options
    #9201
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    In what way. Are you dismissing all of history up to a certain point and if so what point or are you accepting that the Bible should be considered?

    For the purposes of this discussion, dismissing all antiquarian written texts, of course. Not sure why you suggested it, but I'm fine with it. I don't need Plato.

    So, the Bible is off the table. What other evidence do you have to support your claim that a man named Jesus was the son of God and that this God exists or created the world and people?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9202
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    For the purposes of this discussion, dismissing all antiquarian written texts, of course. Not sure why you suggested it, but I'm fine with it. I don't need Plato.

    So, the Bible is off the table. What other evidence do you have to support your claim that a man named Jesus was the son of God and that this God exists or created the world and people?

    In setting a baseline for any discussion on Christian belief the Bible must be accepted.

    Likewise I can take of leave Plato but I prefer not to mess with history. The purpose of the Plato\Caesar discussion was to show that either you accept history or you do not. If you do not accept history there is not much point to the discussion.


  • Options
    #9203
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    In setting a baseline for any discussion on Christian belief the Bible must be accepted.

    There go the goalposts. Oh well.
    Festus wrote: »
    Likewise I can take of leave Plato but I prefer not to mess with history. The purpose of the Plato\Caesar discussion was to show that either you accept history or you do not. If you do not accept history there is not much point to the discussion.

    Only an idiot would accept history in the same way you accept the Bible. Certainly no scholar would do so. A schoolchild learning by rote, perhaps. There's no logic in your argument whatsoever.

    Either we accept history or we don't? Scepticism is just completely alien to you.


  • Options
    #9204
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    I would have thought his existence relevant for some philosophers and mathematicians



    If they do not belong to Plato who do they belong to? Surely that is of some historical relevance?



    Why can the same not be said of the Bible?



    Do you need me to point out how you have contradicted yourself?

    If the lesson is learned then the identity of the teacher is irrelevant.

    The same can be said of The Bible. The teachings are relevant whether the document is historical fact or a fictional story.

    So why insist that The Bible is an historical documentation of events?

    Mathematics doesn't fail if we prove that Plato didnt exist. It just means that things we attributed to Plato were actually introduced by someone else.

    If we prove Christian God and Jesus didn't exist, well, The Bible would still exist and people would still say "hey, that was a good story, I learned a lot!" It would be WAY harder for religions to hold power though right? There's probably something in that.


  • Options
    #9205
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    You can satisfy yourself as to whether or not the Bible is true and whether or not anything has been lost in translation.

    Given that God claims the Bible to be His word and inspired by Him there is merit to this exercise.

    Yes but God didn't tell you personally that The Bible was his word or that it was inspired by Him. Also, if He did, how would you know that He was telling the truth? All you have is Faith, right?

    If God claims The Bible as His word then which Bible? There are many revisions, interpretations and translations of the original text. You have certainly never read The Bible as He would have intended it to be read. The hands of humanity have altered, translated, added to and subtracted from the original. Haven't we edited the Word of God to the point where we are not reasonably take it at face value? How can we claim that such an extensively edited document is historical fact? Faith? Is that it?


  • Options
    #9206
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    If the lesson is learned then the identity of the teacher is irrelevant.

    It is relevant to Bible scholars, just as the identify of those who record other historical facts are relevant.
    orubiru wrote: »
    The same can be said of The Bible. The teachings are relevant whether the document is historical fact or a fictional story.

    There are fictional stories in the Bible and they are flagged as such. Jesus told parables. Anything not flagged as a parable should be considered historical.
    orubiru wrote: »
    So why insist that The Bible is an historical documentation of events?

    Because it is. In some cases there were no eyewitnesses - Creation of the universe, earth, life, can have no eye witnesses, so we accept the writings as being inspired by God. Other writings with authors we accept as being their record either of events they witnesses or inspired by God.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Mathematics doesn't fail if we prove that Plato didnt exist. It just means that things we attributed to Plato were actually introduced by someone else.

    True, but it does make for messy lesson plans.
    orubiru wrote: »
    If we prove Christian God and Jesus didn't exist, well, The Bible would still exist and people would still say "hey, that was a good story, I learned a lot!" It would be WAY harder for religions to hold power though right? There's probably something in that.

    Perhaps, but can you prove that God and Jesus didn't exist?


  • Options
    #9207
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Festus wrote: »
    Perhaps, but can you prove that God and Jesus didn't exist?

    Oh ffs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


  • Options
    #9208
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    Yes but God didn't tell you personally that The Bible was his word or that it was inspired by Him. Also, if He did, how would you know that He was telling the truth? All you have is Faith, right?

    Not just faith. In addition to the Bible there is reason, logic, science, theology and everything that has happened since the end of the Bible.
    orubiru wrote: »
    If God claims The Bible as His word then which Bible? There are many revisions, interpretations and translations of the original text.

    The translations are accurate and have been tested against such findings as the Dead Sea scrolls and not found wanting.

    There were revisions by Protestants - I ignore them.

    Likewise there are certain interpretations which I also ignore.

    I use the vulgate which has been tested.
    orubiru wrote: »
    You have certainly never read The Bible as He would have intended it to be read.

    How do you know?
    orubiru wrote: »
    The hands of humanity have altered, translated, added to and subtracted from the original. Haven't we edited the Word of God to the point where we are not reasonably take it at face value? How can we claim that such an extensively edited document is historical fact? Faith? Is that it?

    As already mentioned. There are plenty of Bible scholars who have examined the text and compared it to historical texts. The languages used in the original are known and understood.
    If there were any errors any undergraduate training in the classics or the antiquities would spot it and scream.


  • Options
    #9209
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    AtomicHorror wrote: »
    Oh ffs.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot


    Back at you and less of the bad language.

    http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/2013/03/russells-teapot-really-refutes-atheism-not-theism/


  • Options
    #9210
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    This life is not the be all and end all. The next life is what is important.

    Before you blame God for what is happening in the world today, consider Satan and what he is seeking.

    Wait now, if I arrive in the next life with my memories of the horrors inflicted in this life intact, wont I be tormented by those memories?

    If my memories in the next life are either erased or not relevant when I get there then, without my memories of me, then what am I? A blank slate? Just one in a vast array of identical, memory-less, Heaven Dwellers?

    You seem to have forgotten that what we do in this life defines us. If my definitions become "unimportant" at the point of death then how can it be "me" who arrives at the next life?

    On Satan, if he is responsible for the horrors of this world then is it not "right" that humanity should take a stand, refuse to reproduce, and die off? We'd pass on into Heaven, together, forever, and leave Satan here alone?

    One wonders if true Evil would create life just so It had something to terrorise...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9211
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,348 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Festus wrote: »
    Sorry, no, I really do have to point out that your understanding of-ism is far too limited

    That is simply false. My definition fits the context perfectly and it is a part of the definition you simply contrive to leave out of your supposed etymology. As such your etymology is far too limited and wildly inaccurate because of this. Your asserting that your definition of anything in the light of this carries no weight.
    Festus wrote: »
    Have you tried using Google to find a definition of God that would fit with your framing of my understanding of God?

    I do not need to look up a definition of god for you. You either have one of your own, or you do not. Which is it?
    Festus wrote: »
    I believe if you want to learn the best way to learn is to do your own research

    Or more accurately really: You believe in making claims and not backing any of them up in any way. Anywhere. Ever.

    Do you have a definition of god? What part of my definition does not fit Catholicism? Do you have any substantiation that the entity you define actually exists?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement