Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

lazygal

Festus wrote: »

That is only part of what I said and you have taken it out of context.
Nor did you specify the age of your children and I am not omniscient.

What is the context of this: "who is without sin, then or now"? Does sin depend on age? I said my children are toddlers, will they suddenly develop the ability to sin when they reach a certain age?

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Ah, so you do have a go at the Protestants as well.

Speaking of foundations. What foundations do your beliefs have?

Sure as stated nearly every religion wants to expand, like a company.

Which beliefs?

And edited my previous entry after you edited your entry, while I wrote the reply of the original post, so I didn't miss two paragraphs of yours, just in case you are wondering.

Festus

Harika wrote: »

Sure as stated nearly every religion wants to expand, like a company.

Some, not all. Some only want to save souls, not make money. Money is only a tool required for survival

Harika wrote: »

Which beliefs?

your beliefs.

Harika wrote: »

And edited my previous entry after you edited your entry, while I wrote the reply of the original post, so I didn't miss two paragraphs of yours, just in case you are wondering.

The speeches from the current Pope and his predecessor are different in style which is natural as they are individuals but the message is still the same.
Pope Francis is a much a hard line orthodox as Pope Emeritus Benedict.

Harika

Festus wrote: »

Some, not all. Some only want to save souls, not make money. Money is only a tool required for survival

Yes, companies also need money to survive. Some religions/companies also influence laws in their interest to make money or save souls, even as it is against the interest of people that are not "customers" of the religion/company.

Festus wrote: »

your beliefs.

You have to be more specific here as beliefs cover a quite broad spectrum.

Festus wrote: »

The speeches from the current Pope and his predecessor are different in style which is natural as they are individuals but the message is still the same.
Pope Francis is a much a hard line orthodox as Pope Emeritus Benedict.

As stated before it is getting into the "feel good" religion so he adapted his style to fit better into its customer base. A comparison of their first 100 speeches can be found here. http://vizynary.com/2013/12/03/gods-word-pope-francis-new-vocabulary/ Summary: "

Francis clearly emphasized poverty and poor far more. Interestingly, he also invoked the words cross, courage, and flesh far more than his predecessor did. This suggests he referred in his speeches far more often to the example and sacrifice of Jesus. Importantly, Francis also emphasized women much more than Benedict XVI.

" So quite a shift, but no one would expect that he preaches suddenly against the bible.
In a company perspective, same thing happens also there, compare Steve Ballmer to Satya Nadella, Microsoft also did not stop suddenly to make an OS but putting its focus on cloud services.
In both cases the company and the religion are loosing customers/influence faster and faster as their counterparts gain attraction. Sure a drop from a market share in Ireland from 99.8% to 93.4% does not seem dramatic, but the younger generation is where the market share drops and the old customers that drop out cannot be replaced. Even the distributors (priests) are falling away, so changes had to be made. If Francis or Nadella can turn it around we will see. Here in fact Nadella might have it far easier as the internal resistance to change is far lower than in the catholic church.

a person.

The penalty for sin from Adam to eternity, was, is, and forever will be death.

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.” – John 8:11

“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell.” – Luke 12:4,5

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

RikuoAmero

Mainly because he never committed anything to paper. Everything we have of Socrates came from transcripts of his speeches written by his students Plato, Aristophanes and Xenophon.

Certain people have asked why, if I dismiss the bible accounts of what Jesus supposedly said, I don't do the same with Socrates or other historical figures. The answer is simple.
Socrates never tries to claim godhood. He never tries to dictate to us what our lives should be like, he never threatens us with some sort of eternal punishment for not believing everything he said.
Also, the teachings of Socrates depend NOT ONE WHIT on the fact that it was Socrates in particular who said them. Can the same be said for Jesus? Nope. I'm reminded of a poster I see sometimes on the inside of the bus, that goes something like this "If the Lord Jesus did not rise from the dead, then our faith is in vain" (can't remember the exact wording, but if you've taken Dublin Bus at all in the past few years, you'll have seen the poster). Basically, the teachings of Jesus are, according to christians, only to be taken seriously because Jesus supposedly rose from the dead and proved he was god.
Another reason I don't treat Socrates like I do the Jesus stories is that, if ever Socrates is ever disproven or for there to be strong evidence against his ever having existed or been a teacher (not likely, but it's theoretically possible), then nothing in my life would change. I'd want history books updated of course, but beyond that...what else should change? Imagine if we proved William Shakespeare never wrote his plays. All that would and should change in that situation is the author's name on the front cover. The actual content should not. The Merchant of Venice, or Romeo and Juliet, are still great plays and great works of literature regardless of the author on the front cover.
Christianity does not share this strength.

Safehands

Festus wrote: »

Now you are being anti-semetic.

Rubbish!

Festus wrote: »

Read my postings. The law says that only without sin can enforce the laws in Deuteronomy and who is without sin, then or now.

They shall cast her out of the doors of her father' s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father' s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee. That quote was posted by you. Where does it say in this tract from Deuteronomy that only people without sin can throw the stones?

RikuoAmero

Safehands wrote: »

Rubbish!



They shall cast her out of the doors of her father' s house, and the men of the city shall stone her to death, and she shall die: because she hath done a wicked thing in Israel, to play the whore in her father' s house: and thou shalt take away the evil out of the midst of thee. That quote was posted by you. Where does it say in this tract from Deuteronomy that only people without sin can throw the stones?

A more important and troubling question comes to mind - if what Festus claims is true...then what was the point of there being a law "on the books" if the only one who can enforce it is someone without sin? Were the Jews before Jesus was born supposed to not enforce any laws? Why bother having laws then?

a person.

If according to the atheists I've seen posting, they have never seen any reason here to believe in God, and even if they were honest enough to say they have, presumably they are still atheists, so what are the atheists here actually seeking ?

Harika

a person. wrote: »

If according to the atheists I've seen posting, they have never seen any reason here to believe in God, and even if they were honest enough to say they have, presumably they are still atheists, so what are the atheists here actually seeking ?

Shamelessly stolen from the internet:

[W]hile gods may not exist, belief in gods and religions organized around such belief definitely do — and those are the actual topics being discussed. Theism exists, is relevant, and plays a role in society. Religion exists, is relevant, and plays a role in society. Just because I don’t believe in any gods and am not part of any religion doesn’t mean that there is something contradictory about discussing religious theism — analyzing what it is, critiquing whether it is rational, and discussing what it means.

RikuoAmero

a person. wrote: »

If according to the atheists I've seen posting, they have never seen any reason here to believe in God, and even if they were honest enough to say they have, presumably they are still atheists, so what are the atheists here actually seeking ?

Simple. I'm trying to falsify my own beliefs. After many years of research, I've come to a conclusion (that a belief in a god or gods cannot be rationally justified) but even now, I'm still not satisfied. I'm still double checking and triple checking everything I've done and learned. Who better to give me the evidence/data/reasoning that (supposedly) provides a rational justification to believe in a god...than a god believer?

So far though...complete failure.

That and what Harika said up above.

a person.

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Simple. I'm trying to falsify my own beliefs. After many years of research, I've come to a conclusion (that a belief in a god or gods cannot be rationally justified) but even now, I'm still not satisfied.

Why ?

RikuoAmero

a person. wrote: »

Why ?

As in...why am I not satisfied? Because I am not 100% certain and can never be 100% certain. However, I will always attempt to get as close to 100% as I can. Isn't this supposed to work in the christian's favour? I'm open to the possibility of joining the religion. All you have to do is convince me with evidence, data, reasoning and logic (that list shamelessly nicked).
I've heard countless times from christians how they bemoan about no-one in today's society being open to the possibility of a god, no-one's looking for the answer bla bla bla...yet here I am, I say JUST THAT, and all I get is a confused look from you?

marienbad

a person. wrote: »

If according to the atheists I've seen posting, they have never seen any reason here to believe in God, and even if they were honest enough to say they have, presumably they are still atheists, so what are the atheists here actually seeking ?

We have a legitimate interest so long as religion plays a role in secular life and laws which affect us all whether we believe or not.

RikuoAmero

Another thing I have to say is that while above I said I strive to get as close to 100% certainty as I can, I at the same time must be cautious of that magic number. Certainty simply means confidence, and if I'm 100% confident in a given claim or proposition, then that means I've closed myself off from anything that might disprove it - see the Ken Hams and Sye Ten Bruggencates of the world who have that level of confidence and yet cannot argue their way out of a paper bag.

Safehands

a person. wrote: »

If according to the atheists I've seen posting, they have never seen any reason here to believe in God, and even if they were honest enough to say they have, presumably they are still atheists, so what are the atheists here actually seeking ?

You know, I really dislike the derogatory term "Atheist". I don't really consider myself an Atheist. I consider myself open to persuasion. I would love to believe in your God, but it just doesn't make any sense. I am a logical person. So please, logically persuade me that I am wrong about my lack of belief in the God you seem to believe in. I am absolutely serious. Please persuade me that when I read the old Testament, I should really believe it was inspired by God. Honestly, I am open to persuasion. Give me a good argument and I promise, I will not ridicule you, I will consider your opinions and offer my views on them.
If you can make your beliefs seem sensible to me I will truly consider re-joining whatever religion seems to support that belief that God is real.
I cannot be fairer than that.
I am seeking the logical truth, to answer your question.

Brian Shanahan

a person. wrote: »

Why ?

"The unexamined life is not worth living for a human being" - Socrates

Turtwig

Mod:

a person. wrote: »

The penalty for sin from Adam to eternity, was, is, and forever will be death.

"Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone."

“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on sin no more.” – John 8:11

“But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell.” – Luke 12:4,5

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

a person. wrote: »

If according to the atheists I've seen posting, they have never seen any reason here to believe in God, and even if they were honest enough to say they have, presumably they are still atheists, so what are the atheists here actually seeking ?

a person. wrote: »

Why ?

The standard of discussion in this thread isn't that particularly high. We would love if it was higher. Even still, your postings thus far have been below any acceptable level for a constructive discussion. It seems like you're just trying to bait people.

Festus wrote: »

Now you are being anti-semetic.

I spilled my drink reading this. I can only assume you were being ironic in tone. In any case, please consider retracting this statement.

Turtwig

Mod:

a person, do not post in this thread again.

Thisname

No one here can prove that there is a God (or that there isn't) I could mention things like the origins of the universe, life, intelligent design etc etc But the only way you'll know for sure is if you give Him the benefit of the doubt. Why not since you're not 100% convinced either way anyway? Take a step of faith and talk to Him, ask Him to reveal Himself. (Don't expect the clouds to part and God to reach down and take you by the hand!) But if you seek Him with an honest heart you'll find He's true to His word.

And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13

RikuoAmero

Thisname wrote: »

No one here can prove that there is a God (or that there isn't) I could mention things like the origins of the universe, life, intelligent design etc etc But the only way you'll know for sure is if you give Him the benefit of the doubt. Why not since you're not 100% convinced either way anyway? Take a step of faith and talk to Him, ask Him to reveal Himself. (Don't expect the clouds to part and God to reach down and take you by the hand!) But if you seek Him with an honest heart you'll find He's true to His word.

And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
Jeremiah 29:13

These kinds of arguments I absolutely loathe, because you are inadvertently throwing in the towel, admitting you don't have any good reasoning, data, logic or evidence to support your position. Basically, you're saying " I have nothing at all that would convince a rational mind...but believe it anyway".
No. Besides, I've said it before, I already have asked God to reveal himself, if he's there. No-one has ever answered that call. All I'm getting is the equivalent of "This number is not in service".
Given that I have sought your god, and yet not found him...this essentially falsifies your position and claim.
Your move.

There are essentially three reasons why I won't do as you wrote
1) You are not presenting any logic, reasoning, data or evidence
2) I am not convinced, I can't simply switch my mind to "Believe in God" mode by a sheer act of will. I have explained in the past that this simply isn't feasible
3) Even if I somehow did so, what you're asking for is for me to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading - why should I force myself to believe in the christian god, over any and all other gods that have been posited by other religions? Why should I treat your god claim as somehow 'worth' more or being more special than all other god claims (especially in light of your "Believe anyway" comment)?

Roquentin

<Mod SNIP: not really appropriate for a constructive discussion.>

Roquentin

@turtwig

do you know what language affords us in life? apart from some craic on s saturday night, it means there can be an infinite number of hypothesis for a given argument.

this thread like Tonight with Vincent browne will just go on and on and on because everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of what is correct.

It is thus pointless arguing over God vs atheism or man utd vs liverpool because everyone has an individual interpretation of what is correct and they are each entitled to believe what they so deem to be correct, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Like a lot of threads people get emotional when displaying their point of view, then say something too emotional and get a few likes and then an infraction. There is so much repetition in arguing.

2+2=5 if you want to be so.

RikuoAmero

Roquentin wrote: »

@turtwig

do you know what language affords us in life? apart from some craic on s saturday night, it means there can be an infinite number of hypothesis for a given argument.

this thread like Tonight with Vincent browne will just go on and on and on because everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of what is correct.

It is thus pointless arguing over God vs atheism or man utd vs liverpool because everyone has an individual interpretation of what is correct and they are each entitled to believe what they so deem to be correct, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Like a lot of threads people get emotional when displaying their point of view, then say something too emotional and get a few likes and then an infraction. There is so much repetition in arguing.

2+2=5 if you want to be so.

Wrong. I can demonstrate 2 +2 = 4 a thousand times over. How about you? Can you ever demonstrate that it equals 5, or is your position simply "I can believe whatever I want, no demonstration required, even if it's been shown to be wrong thousands of times in the past"?

Roquentin

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Wrong. I can demonstrate 2 +2 = 4 a thousand times over. How about you? Can you ever demonstrate that it equals 5, or is your position simply "I can believe whatever I want, no demonstration required, even if it's been shown to be wrong thousands of times in the past"?

the latter

RikuoAmero

Roquentin wrote: »

the latter

Then you and I have no reason to talk to one another. You have no business being here in a DEBATE thread. A debate uses logic, reasoning, data and evidence. Debates don't work if one of the parties is allowed say "Forget all that, I'll believe whatever the feck I want, and no-one's gonna convince me otherwise!"

Roquentin

RikuoAmero wrote: »

Then you and I have no reason to talk to one another. You have no business being here in a DEBATE thread. A debate uses logic, reasoning, data and evidence. Debates don't work if one of the parties is allowed say "Forget all that, I'll believe whatever the feck I want, and no-one's gonna convince me otherwise!"

good luck with that

tommy2bad

Roquentin wrote: »

@turtwig

do you know what language affords us in life? apart from some craic on s saturday night, it means there can be an infinite number of hypothesis for a given argument.

this thread like Tonight with Vincent browne will just go on and on and on because everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of what is correct.

It is thus pointless arguing over God vs atheism or man utd vs liverpool because everyone has an individual interpretation of what is correct and they are each entitled to believe what they so deem to be correct, despite the evidence to the contrary.

Like a lot of threads people get emotional when displaying their point of view, then say something too emotional and get a few likes and then an infraction. There is so much repetition in arguing.

2+2=5 if you want to be so.

Old saying*, You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.. I'm inclined to hold the opinion that only informed opinions count.

*Actually it's not that old it only goes back to 2003 or so and is attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Good turn of phrase though!

Roquentin

tommy2bad wrote: »

Old saying*, You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.. I'm inclined to hold the opinion that only informed opinions count.

*Actually it's not that old it only goes back to 2003 or so and is attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Good turn of phrase though!

thats your interpretation though. my interpretation differs

good phrase though

Safehands

Roquentin wrote: »

@turtwig

do you know what language affords us in life? apart from some craic on s saturday night, it means there can be an infinite number of hypothesis for a given argument.
this thread like Tonight with Vincent browne will just go on and on and on because everyone is entitled to their own interpretation of what is correct.
It is thus pointless arguing over God vs atheism or man utd vs liverpool because everyone has an individual interpretation of what is correct and they are each entitled to believe what they so deem to be correct, despite the evidence to the contrary.
Like a lot of threads people get emotional when displaying their point of view, then say something too emotional and get a few likes and then an infraction. There is so much repetition in arguing.

2+2=5 if you want to be so.

You know, I visited the Museum of Modern art last year. I saw a pint of water on a glass shelf. It was an exhibit. The artist declared that it was actually a tree, not a glass of water, and he presented an articulate argument explaining his reasoning. I'm sure some people looked at it and wondered. No matter how well his explanation was presented, it was still a glass of water, not a tree. The facts revealed that no matter what the artist wanted it to be it was always going to be what the evidence declared it to be, a glass with water in it. Always look at the evidence, then decide!