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…306307309311312…327

Comments

  • Options
    #9242
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    It there anything at all that could shake your faith?

    Nothing that I know of.
    orubiru wrote: »
    I believed in the Christian God once but then I learned about other Gods and they appealed to me more so I felt a better connection to them.

    So, which god or gods do you believe in now? You can PM me if you don't want to go public.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Do you think that something similar could ever happen to you?

    Nah... I prefer truth.


  • Options
    #9243
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    You are correct. It is what we do or do not do in this life that defines us. Your memories will be intact

    Everyone is responsible for their own actions. You cannot blame Satan if you follow him and give in to his temptations.

    Evil cannot create anything. All it can do is destroy.

    If that's true then I am not sure I'd want to move on to the next life. I have to remember the horrors that take place on Earth? No thanks.

    Even if I understood Gods plan I'm not sure that I could deal with knowing that children are suffering on Earth. Sure, it's all part of the plan but THEY don't know that while they are going through it. It's just an awful situation to be in.

    It would make me question the character of God.

    I just don't get it. Why design beings in such a way that they have to devour other beings in order to survive? That seems unspeakably cruel.

    If I look at a lion and a zebra and consider the "design" at work here... surely there is scope to criticize the designer? Who would design the world in such a way that the lion has to tear the zebra apart with claws and teeth just to survive?

    What if we have it backwards? What if this is Satans world and God is the mechanism by which we are compelled to come back for more?

    Do you accept that it might be a possibility?


  • Options
    #9244
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Thisname wrote: »
    Highly unlikely that a group of people, would be experiencing the same delusion about Jesus. And then go on to dedicate their lives to spreading the gospel, being persecuted and killed in the process (you can hardly compare that to some of your examples like Star Wars fans etc). The apostle Paul was converted on the road to Damascus. Prior to that he was zealously persecuting Christians for their faith. He had never met with the disciples, in fact if he has he would have killed them prior to his conversion.

    Over time this was reversed and people were persecuted and killed in the name of spreading the gospel.

    Witch trials... inquisitions...

    Do you then agree that the beliefs of those victims of Christianity are on equal footing with those of the writers of the New Testament? After all, these people were endured torture and died for their beliefs.

    You seem to be saying that if a group of people are prepared to suffer and die for their beliefs then that makes it more "real". So Christianity is just one in a long, long list of examples and no more "real" than any other on that list?


  • Options
    #9245
    Buona Fortuna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,507 ✭✭✭Buona Fortuna


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you have citations from a reputable Bible scholar to support this or are you merely presenting this as your opinion?

    Citations to say what we don't have?

    If you know of these original manusripts, state it and my post is moot.


  • Options
    #9246
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    Two of the Apostles wrote Gospels as eye witnesses. Direct testimony.

    Unproven , written no sooner than AD 60.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9247
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    orubiru wrote: »
    If that's true then I am not sure I'd want to move on to the next life. I have to remember the horrors that take place on Earth? No thanks.

    You have no choice, your death is inevitable.
    orubiru wrote: »
    Even if I understood Gods plan I'm not sure that I could deal with knowing that children are suffering on Earth. Sure, it's all part of the plan but THEY don't know that while they are going through it. It's just an awful situation to be in.

    Whatever God's plan is God does not make people do bad things to children.
    orubiru wrote: »
    It would make me question the character of God.

    WHy not question the character of man?

    orubiru wrote: »
    I just don't get it. Why design beings in such a way that they have to devour other beings in order to survive? That seems unspeakably cruel.

    If I look at a lion and a zebra and consider the "design" at work here... surely there is scope to criticize the designer? Who would design the world in such a way that the lion has to tear the zebra apart with claws and teeth just to survive?

    I'm not sure that there are any full time cannibal tribes or races still eating each other.

    Lions and other carnivorous creatures are not "beings". If you read Genesis you will see that they were not created carnivorous - that came later.

    orubiru wrote: »

    What if we have it backwards? What if this is Satans world and God is the mechanism by which we are compelled to come back for more?

    Do you accept that it might be a possibility?

    I find engaging with fallacious speculation to be illogical and not worth pursuing, and certainly not while sober :)


  • Options
    #9248
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Festus wrote: »
    Lions and other carnivorous creatures are not "beings". If you read Genesis you will see that they were not created carnivorous - that came later.

    I would be very, very impressed with Genesis if Lions were mentioned anywhere. Please impress me Festus, tell me where lions (or dinosaurs for that matter) are mentioned in Genesis. Better still, blow me away completely and tell where i can find a reference to a grass eating, non carnivorous lion in Genesis.

    If man, while exploring Mars or some other planet, came across a Lion I am sure it would be classed as a "being".


  • Options
    #9249
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    Thisname wrote: »
    Highly unlikely that a group of people, would be experiencing the same delusion about Jesus. And then go on to dedicate their lives to spreading the gospel, being persecuted and killed in the process (you can hardly compare that to some of your examples like Star Wars fans etc).

    In recent times, there is a Jewish sect. I first heard about them here
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKAHoYCWXF8&list=UUfsX0iFWcdefP78zQpYRnvQ#t=586
    Here's a wikipedia page talking about their leader, Menachem Mendel Schneerson, who died in 1994, but whom many believe to still be alive. This movement comprises something between 40,000 to over 200,000 people.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chabad_messianism
    Current Chabad teachings say this
    Since the Third of Tammuz, we are no longer able to physically see the Rebbe King Moshiach. The Rebbe remains physically alive just as before, it is only to our eyes that he is concealed. Therefore, we call this a day of concealment, and many refer to this as the "last test." Just as we know that there is a God though we may not see him, so too the Rebbe King Moshiach is here even though we do not see him.

    Some Chabad adherents say
    For this reason, the Rebbe is omniscient, omnipotent, and entirely without limits. He is ‘indistinguishable’ from God. Because he is a transparent window for pure divinity, a ‘man-God,’ ‘when you speak to him, you speak to God.
    Note how similar those two claims are to claims made about Jesus. There are slight differences, but mostly the same. For example, this chair here
    0.jpg is believed by followers to be occupied by Schneerson.

    The people in that religion are hard believers. They believe Schneerson to be god. In only a few years, in the MODERN AGE, they have come to believe him to still be alive, invisible but still present. They are willing to kill and die for him.
    These people you and I would both say are deluded about Schneerson. Very deluded. Are you going to say it is impossible for people in ancient Palestine to have been deluded about Jesus?

    In terms of willingness to die for religious beliefs, the cults of Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians spring to mind as well. So no, the fact the apostles suffered imprisonment, torture and death does nothing at all to confirm to me that Jesus really was supernatural. It only tells me, at most, that these men believed their claims. Simply because a group of people are convinced about something to be supernatural says nothing at all as to whether or not they were actually correct.


    In fact, in terms of sheer believability, the Chadam movement is far more credible to me than christianity. At least the Chadam boasts members who lived at the time of their proclaimed messiah and who are still alive today. I can go and talk to them, question them, see them write their teachings in person.
    I cannot do that with christianity. The four gospels are all written by anonymous authors (seriously, study them please), all written decades after the fact and are not in fact eyewitness testimonies (whoever wrote the gospels did not see the events of Jesus's life firsthand. They more than likely questioned Jews and early christians years after the fact, so AT ABSOLUTE BEST, they are second hand accounts e.g. 'Matthew' saying to readers what other people had told him happened)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Composition_and_setting
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Luke#Composition_and_setting
    Most scholars agree, following what is known as the "Marcan hypothesis",[8] that the authors of Luke and Matthew used Mark as a source when writing their gospels after the Gospel of Mark was completed (written 60-75 AD)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship


  • Options
    #9250
    Thisname
    Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭Thisname


    orubiru wrote: »
    Over time this was reversed and people were persecuted and killed in the name of spreading the gospel.

    Witch trials... inquisitions...

    Do you then agree that the beliefs of those victims of Christianity are on equal footing with those of the writers of the New Testament? After all, these people were endured torture and died for their beliefs.


    You seem to be saying that if a group of people are prepared to suffer and die for their beliefs then that makes it more "real". So Christianity is just one in a long, long list of examples and no more "real" than any other on that list?

    Interesting point re victims of the inquisition. Two very different groups each firm in their beliefs. But there can be only one truth.

    I'm simply pointing out that no one would actively spread a fabricated story, something they say they witnessed personally, knowing it would invite persecution on themselves. They had nothing to gain by making up such a story. It doesn't make sense.

    Also, I think the conversion of Paul is pretty compelling, how he made a complete 180 after his encounter with Jesus.


  • Options
    #9251
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    RikuoAmero wrote: »

    In terms of willingness to die for religious beliefs, the cults of Heaven's Gate and the Branch Davidians spring to mind as well. So no, the fact the apostles suffered imprisonment, torture and death does nothing at all to confirm to me that Jesus really was supernatural. It only tells me, at most, that these men believed their claims. Simply because a group of people are convinced about something to be supernatural says nothing at all as to whether or not they were actually correct.

    It is, apparently, even worse than that. I recall reading somewhere that after the mass suicides it emerged that some of the people that willingly drank the poison didn't actually believe. They had spoken with people on the outside or written in diaries about not believing the story was true, but going along with it anyway, presumably out of some desire to belong. Think about that for a second, knowing something was not true, but still dying for it... Will try to find the references again.

    If we see people in modern times dying for a belief that they actually believe isn't true, what does that say for you apostles. In fact, given that followers of a religion dying for their belief is held up as evidence for many religions, mutually exclusive to christianity, or at least belived by christians to be wrong, what makes you martyrs right and everyone else's wrong?

    MrP


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9252
    RikuoAmero
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,135 ✭✭✭RikuoAmero


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It is, apparently, even worse than that. I recall reading somewhere that after the mass suicides it emerged that some of the people that willingly drank the poison didn't actually believe. They had spoken with people on the outside or written in diaries about not believing the story was true, but going along with it anyway, presumably out of some desire to belong. Think about that for a second, knowing something was not true, but still dying for it... Will try to find the references again.

    If we see people in modern times dying for a belief that they actually believe isn't true, what does that say for you apostles. In fact, given that followers of a religion dying for their belief is held up as evidence for many religions, mutually exclusive to christianity, or at least belived by christians to be wrong, what makes you martyrs right and everyone else's wrong?

    MrP

    Please do. This is the first I've heard about non-believing members of those cults still being willing to die anyway.


  • Options
    #9253
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,191 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    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.

    But does it matter? Julius Cesear doesnt lay claim to believe in him or go to hell which seems to be a popular viewpoint throughout the bible.

    We see the convincing power of magic even today. Big claims like some of those in the bible deserve to come under severe scrutiny as all big claims should. And so, which is more likely - this stuff actually happened or that it was made up / done under a veil of magic and trickery.

    All religons cant be true and im not sure what the bible offers in terms of evidence that other religons dont have.


  • Options
    #9254
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    But does it matter? Julius Cesear doesnt lay claim to believe in him or go to hell which seems to be a popular viewpoint throughout the bible.

    That wasn't the point I was making. Please re-read that section again.
    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    We see the convincing power of magic even today. Big claims like some of those in the bible deserve to come under severe scrutiny as all big claims should. And so, which is more likely - this stuff actually happened or that it was made up / done under a veil of magic and trickery.

    perhaps magic is a convincing power to you. To me it is nothing more than clever entertainment.

    However your comments suggest that you have scrutinized all of Christ's miracles. From your scrutiny can you explain how they were all done?
    Or did this "stuff" actually happen?
    Andrewf20 wrote: »
    All religons cant be true and im not sure what the bible offers in terms of evidence that other religons dont have.

    It is true that all religions cannot be true and it is by measuring one against the others that the truth is found. If you are not sure what the Bible offers start by reading it. Then compare it to the texts of the other religions.


  • Options
    #9255
    Andrewf20
    Registered Users Posts: 3,191 ✭✭✭Andrewf20


    Festus wrote: »
    That wasn't the point I was making. Please re-read that section again.

    I read it again. I do actually believe that Jesus as a man did exist, like Plato or Socrates but as for his supernatural claims - I remain less convinced.

    For me, as long as men (whoever they claim to be) have the power to lie or deceive, doubt will prevail.
    Festus wrote: »
    perhaps magic is a convincing power to you. To me it is nothing more than clever entertainment.

    However your comments suggest that you have scrutinized all of Christ's miracles. From your scrutiny can you explain how they were all done?
    Or did this "stuff" actually happen?

    Im thinking more in terms of its power to convince an audience 2000 years ago. The little I have to go on in relation to biblical miracles (eye witness testimony) doesnt help with the scrutinizing. Even watching magic today (with my own eyes) at a show or on the street, I can find it unfathomable how they do it. However I dont walk away thinking that magic actually exists - but if that was me in the audience 2000 years ago, maybe I would have thought the laws of nature were truely suspended in front of me.
    Festus wrote: »
    It is true that all religions cannot be true and it is by measuring one against the others that the truth is found. If you are not sure what the Bible offers start by reading it. Then compare it to the texts of the other religions.

    I have read large swathes and remain unconvinced. But its not so much whats written - its more in this method of delivery, i.e in the form of an ancient book. Theres just too many holes for it to stack up.


  • Options
    #9256
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    marienbad wrote: »
    Unproven , written no sooner than AD 60.

    Festus, can I have an answer please ? thanks .


  • Options
    #9257
    Safehands
    Registered Users Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭Safehands


    Festus wrote: »
    However your comments suggest that you have scrutinized all of Christ's miracles. From your scrutiny can you explain how they were all done?
    Or did this "stuff" actually happen?

    I don't believe "miracles" actually happened. I believe that most of them were parables, presumably told by Jesus, which in time, turned into stories.
    For example; the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus was actually comparing the existing religious beliefs and his new presence, to wine. Before now the wine was poor now I have arrived and I am the fine wine. It was an analogy between old religious beliefs and the new Christianity, and wine. Up to now the poor wine was served, now you have fine wine.
    The same thing with the calming of the water, he has calmed the stormy religious water by his arrival.

    He seems to have been an amazing man. No Miracles though.


  • Options
    #9258
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Safehands wrote: »
    I don't believe "miracles" actually happened. I believe that most of them were parables, presumably told by Jesus, which in time, turned into stories.

    So it is by faith you believe this, yes?
    Safehands wrote: »
    For example; the wedding feast and the wine. Jesus was actually comparing the existing religious beliefs and his new presence, to wine. Before now the wine was poor now I have arrived and I am the fine wine. It was an analogy between old religious beliefs and the new Christianity, and wine. Up to now the poor wine was served, now you have fine wine.
    The same thing with the calming of the water, he has calmed the stormy religious water by his arrival.

    The wedding feast is recorded in the Gospel as an actual event, but you dismiss that - no evidence, no reasoning, just dismiss it out of hand as an assertion from blind faith.

    Just because you cannot figure out a reasonable way to transform water into the best wine using 2000 year old middle eastern technology is not a good enough reason to dismiss it as merely a story designed to fit an analogy.

    Christians accept it as the first public miracle of Christ. You claim it is nothing but a story
    Safehands wrote: »
    He seems to have been an amazing man. No Miracles though.

    Can prove that claim or is it another one of your blind faith assertions?


  • Options
    #9259
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    Festus, can I have an answer please ? thanks .

    When did Pliny the Younger commit his describion of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius of 79AD to writing? (hint: he did not write it in 79AD)

    Should vulcanologist ignore his evidence due to this gap and rethink their position on Plinian eruptions?


  • Options
    #9260
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    When did Pliny the Younger commit his describion of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius of 79AD to writing? (hint: he did not write it in 79AD)

    Should vulcanologist ignore his evidence due to this gap and rethink their position on Plinian eruptions?

    Cab you Pease answer what I asked, thanks


  • Options
    #9261
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    Cab you Pease answer what I asked, thanks

    What point are you trying to make that the answer to my questions do not address?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9262
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    marienbad wrote: »
    Unproven , written no sooner than AD 60.

    This point, an answer please, thanks


  • Options
    #9263
    robinph
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 24,094 Mod ✭✭✭✭robinph


    Festus wrote: »
    So it is by faith you believe this, yes?

    The opposite position to believing in a god does not require faith. It is just a lack of belief in the supernatural due to zero evidence to support your claims of a god.


  • Options
    #9264
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    This point, an answer please, thanks

    Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

    Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?


  • Options
    #9265
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    So it is by faith you believe this, yes?

    How do you come to this conclusion?

    A believer in God requires Faith because our belief in Gods requires us to look beyond the reality that we see in front of us everyday.

    I believe that God guides my life and my actions but I need to re-affirm my Faith because when I look at the world there is no direct evidence of my God only subtle hints. Second hand tales, dreams and intuition are not "solid" evidence. I understand that my God exists in ways that I cannot fully see or understand and so Faith is an integral component of my religious life.

    The non-believer does not have this problem. It doesn't take Faith to look at the world and say "everything is good here, I see no proof of The Gods so I guess they dont exist". They can move on because it is not relevant. They don't need to have "faith" that everything is normal.

    Gods are only revealed to those who look closely. If one does not look closely then one does not see God and so one does not need Faith to say "No Gods here".

    Most likely it will not matter. The Gods would not reject Atheists. It seems more reasonable that God would commend them for keeping an open mind and waiting for solid evidence before understanding.

    A believers life is one of committing to an ideal and sticking with it. One requires Faith to do this. God MAY appreciate that but God may also say "ah, you were not supposed to know I exist!".

    A non-believer is not burdened by such things. They can have a life of exploration, discovery and (maybe) at the end revelation. None of this requires Faith. They only need to keep their mind open and enjoy the journey.

    I believe in my God because I have seen things and have had certain revelations at various points in my life. Was this what God intended? I am not so sure. He wasn't exactly broadcasting Himself so maybe I was not supposed to see?

    I believe that the character of God would not be so cruel as to cast out Atheists because they had no faith. I think it more likely that God would laugh and say "well, OF COURSE you didn't believe! I wasn't exactly coming down to declare myself every Saturday was I?"

    Non-belief in God is not a faith-based position and it never will be.


  • Options
    #9266
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,765 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

    Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?
    Band of Brothers actually had interviews from the surviving soldiers that the mini-series is about. Did the writers of the bible interview Jesus or the apostles?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #9267
    orubiru
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,290 ✭✭✭orubiru


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

    Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?

    It doesn't matter though. The claims made by celebrities are not used to govern nations.

    If Tiger Woods biographer said that there is eyewitness testimony that Tiger channels the souls of long departed Golfers and told us we shouldn't play Golf on Fridays or have sex with other men then... are we not entitled to ask for verification?

    The difference between The Bible and Band of Brothers? I mean, come ON, really?


  • Options
    #9268
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    Do you treat the biographies of celebrities written decades after the event in a similar vein?

    Should we treat a history like Band of Brothers the way you treat the Bible because it was written in 1992 and not 1945 ?

    We are discussing direct testimony versus hearsay and so far you have not shown the Bible is anything other than hearsay


  • Options
    #9269
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    We are discussing direct testimony versus hearsay and so far you have not shown the Bible is anything other than hearsay

    I have stated it is direct testimony to which your response is that it is hearsay and you have insinuated that there is a significance to the gap between the the events occurring and their being written down by the eye witnesses.

    I have responded with examples that demonstrate that there is no significance to what you are insinuating.


  • Options
    #9270
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Festus wrote: »
    I have stated it is direct testimony to which your response is that it is hearsay and you have insinuated that because there is a significance to the gap between the the events and their being written down.

    I have responded with examples that demonstrate that there is no significance to what you are insinuating.


    And who are you ? The most reputable scholars believe that two of the Gospels may be direct testimony but are not definitive on it . They may also may have reported it directly to the scribes that wrote it down later .

    Is that not correct


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9271
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    marienbad wrote: »
    And who are you ? The most reputable scholars believe that two of the Gospels may be direct testimony but are not definitive on it . They may also may have reported it directly to the scribes that wrote it down later .

    Is that not correct

    Who are you?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement