Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Sin City

PDN wrote: »

That's fine, asking questions about hurricanes can lead us to answers.

But debating what God might have been doing billions of years ago, when there is no prospect of discovering the answer, is the kind of philosophical navel-gazing that really requires a considerable amount of alcohol.

There are certain questions that are meaningless, in that we lack the capacity to answer them. There's certainly nothing wrong with admitting that we don't know some things, or that we are unlikely to ever know them in this life.

What is funny, is that the same people who deride us for saying we don't know such things tend to be the same people who, with the next breath, will attack us as being arrogant and behaving as if we have all the answers.

Tis indeed a catch 22

ISAW

Worztron wrote: »

The Feeding of the 5000 – how is it possible to feed so many with five loaves and two fish?

Maybe they all brought food but werent used to sharing what they had'and wwere shown a "new way" which meant not consuming to excess and sharing your resources. Environmental Christianity if you will.

Worztron wrote: »

Children are dying of starvation every few seconds in the world. Why would a God allow this?

I suggest you search the previous discussions on Problem of evil and Libnitz

Worztron wrote: »

World hunger will only be solved by a complete change to our rotten capitalist 'society'.

Well you anti church anti capitalist mask is slipping here. christianity has aclear view on this . ever heard "render onto Caesar..." etc. The piunt being God is not of the material world nor of worshiping it.

The Catholic church has loads of property and should sell a lot of it and give the money to the poor. (They should practice what they preach)

REally? To whom? who can afford to buy property? In fact this also has been discussed. The Pope is not personally wealthy . Should the Taoiseach say "ireland has Newgrange and the like and we can sell that"?
[quote[
The ironic thing is this. Jesus lived very modestly - this is in stark comparison to the grandeur and luxory that bishops and other church big-wigs of many religions live in.[/QUOTE]

Not really . While rock stars and celebrities have vast personal wealth bishops and popes leave very little ( unless they had personal wealth before becoming a cleric). THey also dont indulge in glottony drugssex etc. that some of the wealthy do.

Worztron wrote: »

There is tangible evidence that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago but not a shred of hard evidence that Jesus existed 2000 years ago. The bible is mere hearsay.

Dinosaurs did not exist millionms of years ago! Get you r facts straight. The KT boundary was much more distant.

The evidence for Jesus is called "historicity of Jesus"
you will in fact find thatJesus had as miuch por more evidence for then than Alexander the Great or Socrates for example.
I don't see you sayoing Socrates or Alexander never existed. How come that?

Hey PDN. How old do you think the planet is? 6000 years old? :rolleyes:

Hey Wortzon how is it you think all christians are the same as the one percent of fundamentalists? Ignorance?

Worztron wrote: »

What? So you think it is acceptable for bishops to live in decadent luxury while children starve? Total hypocrites, they are.

Answered above.

They don't have to walk around in rags but they can certainly live a far more modest lifestyle.

And they do. your evidence to the contrary is?

marienbad wrote: »

Taken in the context of my post on that passage, the every army before or since raped their defeated enemies.

Really? The Salvation Army? The Irish Army?

There are many sincere atheists that post in this forum

And your authority to declare then sincere to declare them atheists otr to speak for them is???

but everything becomes polarised so quickly. And if you dont mind me saying so your default position seems to be a bit of a smart-arse first and and considered second. Maybe you have just experienced too many trolls.

Maybe you should make a rational point instead of indulging in ad hominem?

PDN wrote: »

I don't know. God hasn't given me a detailed account of His activities over the last few billion years. I haven't asked Him to, and I don't really see why it would matter to me.

marienbad wrote: »

Agreed, therefore it is you that are stretching the interpretative boundaries in assuming they did not behave as every other army did and this while carrying out Gods mandate. Though you are not going as far as ISAW with his indentured servant line.

Im not going far at all! My argument is based on current anthropological and sociological
standards. Íf you can prove rape as others claimed then go do it!

As I said earlier if Christians can accept ( with reservations) the genocide, murder of children, enslavement etc whats the problem ?

The problem is that we are discussing actaul claims of RAPE here! Sop stick with the issue.

God (the Bible) did'nt use the specific word ? a bit like ''will no-one rid me of this meddlesome priest'' kind of thinking.

Njot alone are you saying
the Bible does not directly condone rape but just that your opinion is it does but you just cant show it because the actual place doest isist
but
you are now adding that the Pope ordered Martin Luther''s assasination.

Ciaran0

A scenario for all the believers:
Say you had never heard of God. You had never experienced any religious tradition. You were raised to have a scientific mind, unbiased and open to new ideas and theories. You believed theories such as the Big Bang and evolution to be very decent guesses at what's happened given the evidence we've got.

Now someone tells you about God. An eternal being who knows all and sees all. He knows your every thought and action. He is all powerful and if you regularly pray to him, and do what he tells you to do he'll let you into his magical kingdom when you die. When you get there you'll live forever, but to do that you've got to follow his rules. He doesn't like when you eat certain meat. You have to fast on certain days, and not work on certain days. On those days you have to attend a ceremony to worship him. There are lots more rules, all laid out in this book. Written almost two thousand years ago, it tells the whole story. One of the most important bits is that his son was here on earth two millennia ago, preaching the word. We didn't like him at the time so we killed him off, even though he was doing all these wonderfully impossible miracles. Thankfully he came back to life for a short while to lay down the foundations of this religion. It's him we're named after. There are thousands of other variations but they're all wrong. How do we know? We just get this feeling about it.

You might be saying to yourself, "Surely I can't be expected to just buy into this and not ask why?"

But that's the best bit you see. This God chap will love you all the more for believing without any evidence. There's not even any point even trying to figure out why because God is beyond all our comprehension. You don't have to ask why because the answer is beyond you.

Also, he's very concerned about your sex life.

Would you buy into it??

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

That's fine, asking questions about hurricanes can lead us to answers.

But debating what God might have been doing billions of years ago, when there is no prospect of discovering the answer, is the kind of philosophical navel-gazing that really requires a considerable amount of alcohol.

There are certain questions that are meaningless, in that we lack the capacity to answer them. There's certainly nothing wrong with admitting that we don't know some things, or that we are unlikely to ever know them in this life.

What is funny, is that the same people who deride us for saying we don't know such things tend to be the same people who, with the next breath, will attack us as being arrogant and behaving as if we have all the answers.

I wouldn't deride anyone for saying I don't know, and I certainly don't think you are being arrogant and behaving like you have all the answers. What I don't like is when people will put something inexplicable down to God. If I answer the question, "How was it done?" with "God did it," it's almost as good as giving up. Because if you accept that God did it then you will never be bothered to find out for yourself what actually happened. Saying I don't know is what drives the progression of science. It's all about trying to figure out answers. Putting something down to god stops that.

marienbad

ISAW I am to tired to go through your whole post , but where did I say the pope ordered a hit on martin luther ??

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

A scenario for all the believers:
Say you had never heard of God. You had never experienced any religious tradition. You were raised to have a scientific mind, unbiased and open to new ideas and theories. You believed theories such as the Big Bang and evolution to be very decent guesses at what's happened given the evidence we've got.

Now someone tells you about God. An eternal being who knows all and sees all. He knows your every thought and action. He is all powerful and if you regularly pray to him, and do what he tells you to do he'll let you into his magical kingdom when you die. When you get there you'll live forever, but to do that you've got to follow his rules. He doesn't like when you eat certain meat. You have to fast on certain days, and not work on certain days. On those days you have to attend a ceremony to worship him. There are lots more rules, all laid out in this book. Written almost two thousand years ago, it tells the whole story. One of the most important bits is that his son was here on earth two millennia ago, preaching the word. We didn't like him at the time so we killed him off, even though he was doing all these wonderfully impossible miracles. Thankfully he came back to life for a short while to lay down the foundations of this religion. It's him we're named after. There are thousands of other variations but they're all wrong. How do we know? We just get this feeling about it.

You might be saying to yourself, "Surely I can't be expected to just buy into this and not ask why?"

But that's the best bit you see. This God chap will love you all the more for believing without any evidence. There's not even any point even trying to figure out why because God is beyond all our comprehension. You don't have to ask why because the answer is beyond you.

Also, he's very concerned about your sex life.

Would you buy into it??

I guess the only way we could answer that question would be to see if we could replicate the kind of circumstances in your scenario.

Let's see, we could isolate a country from any outside influence - say for 30 years.

Then we could expel all missionaries from that country, dismantle churches, and imprison religious leaders.

Then we could brainwash all the children that religion was a terrible thing and that evolution and the big bang had somehow disproved religion. This would, of course, necessitate a Cultural Revolution.

Finally, after 30 years of this, we could relax the restrictions slightly, thus exposing these young people to the possibility that they might hear the religious message you outlined above. However, we wouldn't want to make it too easy for them, so we still make it a very real danger that they will be arrested and imprisoned if they embrace the religious message. This would ensure that only genuine conversions would take place, rather than nominal or cultural conversions.

Hey, guess what? Your scenario has already been played out in China. Isn't that great? We don't have to imagine what would happen. We simply have to look at China and see how none of these young people believed such a ridiculous set of teachings ...........

Oops! What do we find? Anywhere between 50 million and 130 million new Christians in China - predominantly among young people and with the educated and intellectuals being disproportionately over-represented.

That's a bit embarrassing, isn't it?

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

Let's see, we could isolate a country from any outside influence - say for 30 years.

Then we could expel all missionaries from that country, dismantle churches, and imprison religious leaders.

Then we could brainwash all the children that religion was a terrible thing and that evolution and the big bang had somehow disproved religion. This would, of course, necessitate a Cultural Revolution.

Finally, after 30 years of this, we could relax the restrictions slightly, thus exposing these young people to the possibility that they might hear the religious message you outlined above. However, we wouldn't want to make it too easy for them, so we still make it a very real danger that they will be arrested and imprisoned if they embrace the religious message. This would ensure that only genuine conversions would take place, rather than nominal or cultural conversions.

Just a quick point on this:

What you've described is really not at all what Ciaran0 was describing. It's a haphazard description of China's social situation for the last half-century or so. You designed it entirely to manoeuvre the argument to your point.

Christianity has never been endangered in China - it has been there since Western explorers first brought it there. Even in the cultural revolution there were millions of practising Christians, only a small fraction of whom were ever persecuted.

And what about these 50 - 130m new Christians in China? Even taking your higher estimate of 130m Christians - this is <10% of the populace and they've been there a long time. It's well documented.

You dishonestly implied that there has been a wave of young Chinese flocking to the Christian cause as the walls of China's closed state fall down - how romantic.

But it isn't the case - there's no interest in Christianity among China's new generation which extends beyond their interest in Prada handbags or Western culture in general.

People rarely take up religious beliefs that aren't forced into them as children. And you chose China as your best counter-example to this?

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

Just a quick point on this:

What you've described is really not at all what Ciaran0 was describing. It's a haphazard description of China's social situation for the last half-century or so. You designed it entirely to manoeuvre the argument to your point.

It's the closest thing in human history to what Ciaran0 was describing.

Of course you are free to choose to ignore what has happened in China, and then you can judge Ciaran0's scenario entirely from what you imagine might happen. And we can assume that your imaginations will be entirely unbiased, of course.

Christianity has never been endangered in China - it has been there since Western explorers first brought it there. Even in the cultural revolution there were millions of practising Christians, only a small fraction of whom were ever persecuted.

That is untrue. Under the Communist regime it has been, and indeed still is illegal to teach under 18s about the Bible. That applies to 100% of Christians and, by any reasonable view, constitutes persecution.

The generation that grew up through the Cultural Revolution is the closest thing that the human race has ever seen to Ciaran0's thought experiment.

And what about these 50 - 130m new Christians in China? Even taking your higher estimate of 130m Christians - this is <10% of the populace and they've been there a long time. It's well documented.

No, it is completely dishonest to insinuate that 10% of the population of China have been there for a long time. The percentage used to be very low indeed.

By even the lowest estimates, tens of millions of young Chinese, who grew up during the Cultural Revolution have converted to Christianity. You can crib about how 10% isn't really very much after such a long time (even if it's more than the percentage of atheists in the world after thousands of years - go figure) but it is certainly enough to blow Ciaran0's point sky high. Tens of millions of young people, raised in conditions as near as possible to what he describes, have chosen to embrace Christianity. Facts, my friend, empirical facts - and they trump Ciaran's imagination every time.

You dishonestly implied that there has been a wave of young Chinese flocking to the Christian cause as the walls of China's closed state fall down - how romantic.

What I described is the truth. I have met thousands of these young Chinese - and interviewed hundreds of them. Their experiences tally closely with what Ciaran0 described. So the dishonesty lies entirely with those who reject the facts.

But it isn't the case - there's no interest in Christianity among China's new generation which extends beyond their interest in Prada handbags or Western culture in general.

Ah, so now you want to totally ignore Ciaran0's scenario and invent a new one where we compare the numbers of people embracing Christianity with interest in Western culture? Now who is manoeuvring things to fit their point? And you have the nerve to call me dishonest?

People rarely take up religious beliefs that aren't forced into them as children.

And if that were true - then religions would never spread except by emigration of those who were forced as children. The fact is that every year millions of adults choose to embrace religions in which they were not raised as children.

You might not like the facts - but face up to them in a manly way!

And you chose China as your best counter-example to this?

No, I chose China as the closest example to Ciaran0's scenario, and one where I have first hand knowledge of the situation.

nickcave

It's the closest thing in human history to what Ciaran0 was describing.

What was described was a thought-experiment. It's procedure involves abstracting yourself from your own upbringing and examining how you think things would be different. I really don't think the enormous social tension and violence surrounding China's Cultural Revolution provides quite the sterile petri dish required for that, do you?

In an event, I think modern secular education provides a more clear outlook on the result of upbringing without faith enforcement. And I imagine you've seen the insides of enough churches to see the net effect of this, as the congregation ages.

By even the lowest estimates, tens of millions of young Chinese, who grew up during the Cultural Revolution have converted to Christianity. Tens of millions of young people, raised in conditions as near as possible to what he describes, have chosen to embrace Christianity.

The other >90% of China's population (over a billion individuals) did not convert - they had the same opportunity to, but chose not to. 10% really isn't that much and it's the higher estimate.

What I described is the truth. I have met thousands of these young Chinese - and interviewed hundreds of them. Their experiences tally closely with what Ciaran0 described. So the dishonesty lies entirely with those who reject the facts.

Well then you're a primary source for all of this - can you provide any hard evidence? You would substantiate your claims far more strongly than you have been had you anything substantial to bargain with. Where are these interviews?

Ah, so now you want to totally ignore Ciaran0's scenario and invent a new one where we compare the numbers of people embracing Christianity with interest in Western culture? Now who is manoeuvring things to fit their point? And you have the nerve to call me dishonest?

Rubbish - you brought up China.

And if that were true - then religions would never spread except by emigration of those who were forced as children. The fact is that every year millions of adults choose to embrace religions in which they were not raised as children.

Historically, that is the primary mode of the spread of religion. Emigration (probably too weak a term) of indoctrinated men enforcing their own belief system on others through campaigns of some of the worst violence on record. Thankfully, that's not done anymore.

Maybe there are 'millions of adults' freely disposing themselves to religion, but that does not equal 'most adults' or even 'lots of adults'. A million converts would be 0.01% of the sample space (the global population). Why do you think the figures are so low?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

ISAW I am to tired to go through your whole post , but where did I say the pope ordered a hit on martin luther ??

My mistake which I will correct

you are now adding that the Pope ordered Martin Luther''s assasination

for "the pope ordered Marthn Luters assisination"
read" King Henry ordered Thomas Beckett's assination"

The other point being you are claiming "just because yher actual word rape isnt specifically mentioned does no me it is not being ordered"

1. Yes it does mean it isn't being ordered
2. Even if 1 was wrong absence of evidence may not mean evidence of absence but it nor is it evidence of presence either

ISAW

nickcave wrote: »

The other >90% of China's population (over a billion individuals) did not convert - they had the same opportunity to, but chose not to. 10% really isn't that much and it's the higher estimate.

Higher than the percentage of hard line atheists in the USA after over 200 years of secularism!

But the point is 10% converted in a decade or so . It is only since the 1990s that
freedom of religion was relaxed in china
Traditionally China is Buddhist/atheist. If Islam came to Ireland in the 1990 ( and it has very much so) and 10% of the population today had converted to Islam you would not regard that as significant?

Historically, that is the primary mode of the spread of religion. Emigration (probably too weak a term) of indoctrinated men enforcing their own belief system on others through campaigns of some of the worst violence on record. Thankfully, that's not done anymore.

Yep but enforced atheism which killed hundreds of times more people actually has the worst record.

Maybe there are 'millions of adults' freely disposing themselves to religion, but that does not equal 'most adults' or even 'lots of adults'. A million converts would be 0.01% of the sample space (the global population). Why do you think the figures are so low?

Maybe because over 50% of the sample space ( more than three to four billion) already believe in something?

PDN

nickcave wrote: »

What was described was a thought-experiment. It's procedure involves abstracting yourself from your own upbringing and examining how you think things would be different. I really don't think the enormous social tension and violence surrounding China's Cultural Revolution provides quite the sterile petri dish required for that, do you?

Being the best thing we have, it's better than the enormously biased imagination of an atheist.

In an event, I think modern secular education provides a more clear outlook on the result of upbringing without faith enforcement. And I imagine you've seen the insides of enough churches to see the net effect of this, as the congregation ages.

Actually the average age of the congregation of which I'm a part is younger than the national average - and most of them embraced Christianity as adults.

But I think you're missing the point. Nowhere have I, or anyone else, claimed that the majority of people exposed to Christianity will become Christians. What we do claim, and the claim is backed up by hard evidence, is that significant numbers of people, often highly educated and cultured people, will accept Christianity even where they have not been subjected to childhood indoctrination.

I realise that doesn't suit the one-eyed worldview of some atheists - but your faith really has to run up against facts at some point.

The other >90% of China's population (over a billion individuals) did not convert - they had the same opportunity to, but chose not to. 10% really isn't that much and it's the higher estimate.

Congratulations on spectacularly missing the point and arguing against a position nobody is advancing.

Despite Ciaran0's wildly inaccurate caricature of Christian beliefs, he was asking if I would buy into it. The answer is yes, both in my personal case (I grew up as an atheist) and that of tens of millions of others.

Well then you're a primary source for all of this - can you provide any hard evidence? You would substantiate your claims far more strongly than you have been had you anything substantial to bargain with. Where are these interviews?

I've shared my personal experiences - as do most posters on boards.ie.

You know what, we have unbelievers all the time sharing their personal experiences on here - thank God that the Christian posters here generally interact with them in good faith, rather than saying, "Where's your evidence that you went to a half empty church where the priest said what you claimed he did? Have you photographs and a recording?" Actually, as a moderator, I would infract and ban any Christian posters who imputed dishonesty to a non-Christian poster purely because their account of their personal experiences conflicts with the Christian's worldview.

I have met thousands of young Christians in China. Hundreds of them, during extensive discussions and conversations, have shared with me that they grew up with no childhood Christian influence whatsoever. They met Ciaran0's scenario.

Rubbish - you brought up China.

And you brought up Prada.

Historically, that is the primary mode of the spread of religion. Emigration (probably too weak a term) of indoctrinated men enforcing their own belief system on others through campaigns of some of the worst violence on record. Thankfully, that's not done anymore.

And historically (if much more recent history), of course, atheism has spread in exactly the same way.

But, as you say, thankfully that isn't generally done anymore .... well, not in regard to Christianity anyway. Some atheists still do it, of course.

But, since you acknowledge that it isn't done anymore, then that would mean that adults no longer convert to religions anymore, wouldn't it? ooops!

Maybe there are 'millions of adults' freely disposing themselves to religion,

Thank you - so millions of adults freely dispose themselves to religion.

That's fine. Case closed.

nickcave

ISAW wrote: »

Higher than the percentage of hard line atheists in the USA after over 200 years of secularism!

But in fact, nowhere near the actual % of the US who are agnostic/atheist. There aren't enough churches to fill the % of people who are supposedly Christian anyway. I'm still officially a Catholic (!)

But the point is 10% converted in a decade or so . It is only since the 1990s that
freedom of religion was relaxed in china
Traditionally China is Buddhist/atheist.

10% of China certainly did not convert to Christianity in the past 10 years. Why are you saying this?

Yep but enforced atheism which killed hundreds of times more people actually has the worst record.

I'll assume you're either talking about "Gott mit Uns" Nazism or the anti-Imperialist (and thereby anti-establishment) Stalinism.

Think about this: if the mad delusions of any of history's tyrannical dictators ever aligned themselves to a commonplace world religion, wouldn't that be a strong indictment of the inhumanity of those doctrines?

So you see how it's not even possible for Stalin to have been a Christian?

This is atheism by default, not by design. No thinking person would have any truck with the horrors he dealt upon his people.

And Hitler was a Christian - not a model of the faith or anything, but a Christian nonetheless.

Maybe because over 50% of the sample space ( more than three to four billion) already believe in something?

Well update my figure to 0.02% and go again.

nickcave

PDN wrote: »

Being the best thing we have, it's better than the enormously biased imagination of an atheist.

What am I biased towards? I don't have a belief system to protect.

The answer is yes, both in my personal case (I grew up as an atheist) and that of tens of millions of others.

Well this is a more adequate answer to Ciaran0's question. But what do you mean you 'grew up as an atheist'? What happened?

And historically (if much more recent history), of course, atheism has spread in exactly the same way.

Atheism has spread because of education and open forum for the spread of all ideas - not by the sword.

Some atheists still do it, of course.

I really hope you have examples?

Thank you - so millions of adults freely dispose themselves to religion.

That's fine. Case closed.

If you take my comments completely out of context then yeah, I guess that would be case closed.

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

significant numbers of people, often highly educated and cultured people, will accept Christianity even where they have not been subjected to childhood indoctrination.

Despite Ciaran0's wildly inaccurate caricature of Christian beliefs, he was asking if I would buy into it. The answer is yes, both in my personal case (I grew up as an atheist) and that of tens of millions of others.

I have met thousands of young Christians in China. Hundreds of them, during extensive discussions and conversations, have shared with me that they grew up with no childhood Christian influence whatsoever. They met Ciaran0's scenario.

Actually you've both missed the point of the scenario completely. Just because millions of Chinese people buy into it doesn't mean you should. As my mother used to say to me whenever I did something bold or stupid when I was younger under the influence of my peers. I'd say something like "But the Chinese people are doing it why shouldn't I?" And she would reply, " If the Chinese were jumping off cliffs would you do it?"

Should you do something just because million's of other people do it?

The whole thing about religion is people being sheep, and following blindly. Christianity sums it up perfectly, "The lord is my shepherd. There is nothing I shall want"

I wouldn't buy into my scenario without first getting a reasonable answer for why God behaves as strangely as he does. God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me. As far as I'm concerned that's not an answer, it's a cop out. It's the fear of being afraid to take a step back from the flock and wonder what the shepherd's actually up to!

My scenario doesn't exist in china. It doesn't exist on earth. It's a make believe scenario. If some Mormons came to your door and told you their version of the story, you would immediately dismiss their story as nonsense. But their story is only as nonsensical as the thousands of other religious stories in existence.

What makes the Christian God any more real than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

Being the best thing we have, it's better than the enormously biased imagination of an atheist.

I directed the scenario at believers. Atheist bias doesn't come into this at all. Are you able to use your imagination.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Actually you've both missed the point of the scenario completely. Just because millions of Chinese people buy into it doesn't mean you should. As my mother used to say to me whenever I did something bold or stupid when I was younger under the influence of my peers. I'd say something like "But the Chinese people are doing it why shouldn't I?" And she would reply, " If the Chinese were jumping off cliffs would you do it?"

Should you do something just because million's of other people do it?

Ah, my bad. So your scenario was not based on how significant numbers of people would or would not react. It was about how I would react, not anyone else.

In that case your scenario applies to me (although obviously I was presented with a genuine Christian message, not your outlandish parody of it).

Yes I did buy into it, and 30 years later I'm very glad that I did so.

I directed the scenario at believers. Atheist bias doesn't come into this at all. Are you able to use your imagination.

I don't have to use my imagination. The scenario describes how I was - although i would have to use my imagination to replace the Christian Gospel I heard with your caricature of it.

antiskeptic

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Actually you've both missed the point of the scenario completely. Just because millions of Chinese people buy into it doesn't mean you should. As my mother used to say to me whenever I did something bold or stupid when I was younger under the influence of my peers. I'd say something like "But the Chinese people are doing it why shouldn't I?" And she would reply, " If the Chinese were jumping off cliffs would you do it?"

What millions of Chinese Christians who've not been brought up in Christianity does is uproot the simplistic objection that the reason people believe is because they've been brought up in Christianity. It's an objection Irish people will face from irish atheist.

It's an objection that can be set aside thus. Next!

The whole thing about religion is people being sheep, and following blindly. Christianity sums it up perfectly, "The lord is my shepherd. There is nothing I shall want"

Sheep don't follow blindly - they follow because they've come to trust the shepherd for good reason and have concluded it is best to go where he goes.

Besides, if you've ever seen One Man and His Dog you'll have a better idea of the reality of Christians following of their shepherd. They behave more like kittens than sheep.

I wouldn't buy into my scenario without first getting a reasonable answer for why God behaves as strangely as he does. God works in mysterious ways doesn't do it for me. As far as I'm concerned that's not an answer, it's a cop out. It's the fear of being afraid to take a step back from the flock and wonder what the shepherd's actually up to!

There are rational reasons for lots that God does but to demand you be in a position to fully understand each and every element is to suppose that you should be on a par with God.

You're only a human. Tremendously valuable because of the image after whom you were made. But only human.

My scenario doesn't exist in china. It doesn't exist on earth. It's a make believe scenario. If some Mormons came to your door and told you their version of the story, you would immediately dismiss their story as nonsense. But their story is only as nonsensical as the thousands of other religious stories in existence.

Their story is as nonsensical as all the other religious versions of the story when compared to the version of the story you currently believe (Naturalism, I'm supposing)

Their story and your story are nonsensical to me when compared to the Christian version of the story.

We all sail in the same kind of boat. Our version is best.

What makes the Christian God any more real than the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

..or the world coming out of nothing. Or the world perpetually bouncing in and out (having come from nothing). Or pulled rabbit-like out of some cosmologists quantum hat ("Before the Big Bang there was nothing, then there was something").

In supposing the Christian God a fairytale you'd really want to step back to examine the ground on which you walk

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

Ah, my bad. So your scenario was not based on how significant numbers of people would or would not react. It was about how I would react, not anyone else.

In that case your scenario applies to me (although obviously I was presented with a genuine Christian message, not your outlandish parody of it).

Yes I did buy into it, and 30 years later I'm very glad that I did so.

Perfect. That's excellent. You came from a completely secular background, and had never heard of God?

Now can I ask you why you bought into it?

I don't have to use my imagination. The scenario describes how I was - although i would have to use my imagination to replace the Christian Gospel I heard with your caricature of it.

If I didn't represent you religion accurately my apologies. I thought I got it quite right to be honest. Now please tell me why you left your completely secular, areligious worldview in favour of a blind belief in God.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Perfect. That's excellent. You came from a completely secular background, and had never heard of God?

No, of course I had heard of God. I just treated the concept as a fairy story.

If I didn't represent you religion accurately my apologies. I thought I got it quite right to be honest. Now please tell me why you left your completely secular, areligious worldview in favour of a blind belief in God.

I didn't. I never embraced a blind belief in anything. Nor do I actually know any Christian who did.

Ciaran0

antiskeptic wrote: »

What millions of Chinese Christians who've not been brought up in Christianity does is uproot the simplistic objection that the reason people believe is because they've been brought up in Christianity. It's an objection Irish people will face from irish atheist.

It's an objection that can be set aside thus. Next!

Grand, set that objection aside. It's not like it has anything to do with what I was talking about. Answer this question: Should you believe in something because lots of other people believe it?

Sheep don't follow blindly - they follow because they've come to trust the shepherd for good reason and have concluded it is best to go where he goes.

Great. What reasons do you have to trust in God? How did you come to the conclusion of God being a trustworthy chap without ever having met him first hand? Where is the evidence that he exists?

Besides, if you've ever seen One Man and His Dog you'll have a better idea of the reality of Christians following of their shepherd. They behave more like kittens than sheep.

I'll look it up

There are rational reasons for lots that God does but to demand you be in a position to fully understand each and every element is to suppose that you should be on a par with God.

That's just it. Supposedly no one is on a par with God and no one can comprehend him, that's why we can't question what he does. But take the Flying spaghetti Monster. He Exists. Just in a way that's beyond Human comprehension. You can't refute his existence.

You're only a human. Tremendously valuable because of the image after whom you were made. But only human.

Hate that phrase in this context. It's so demeaning to the Human race.

Their story is as nonsensical as all the other religious versions of the story when compared to the version of the story you currently believe (Naturalism, I'm supposing)

Their story and your story are nonsensical to me when compared to the Christian version of the story.

We all sail in the same kind of boat. Our version is best.

Which part of my beliefs are nonsensical to you?

..or the world coming out of nothing. Or the world perpetually bouncing in and out (having come from nothing). Or pulled rabbit-like out of some cosmologists quantum hat ("Before the Big Bang there was nothing, then there was something").

In supposing the Christian God a fairytale you'd really want to step back to examine the ground on which you walk

Excellent side step. I asked a simple question. Why believe in the Christian God and not some other version?

Ciaran0

PDN wrote: »

No, of course I had heard of God. I just treated the concept as a fairy story.

I didn't. I never embraced a blind belief in anything. Nor do I actually know any Christian who did.

Please answer the question.

PDN

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Please answer the question.

I have answered the question. I never embraced a blind faith in anything (well, not since I abandoned my atheism which was more a case of blindly accepting indoctrination from authority figures).

Cato Maior

Ciaran0 wrote: »

Please answer the question.

In fairness, sticking 'blind' into your question was asking for the answer you got. It was a kind of 'when did you stop beating your wife' kind of a question.

Why didn't you just ask him for his reasons for converting to Christianity without the little 'in-question' jibe?

Soul Winner

nickcave wrote: »

But in fact, nowhere near the actual % of the US who are agnostic/atheist.

What's the difference between atheism and agnosticism? There seems to be a lot of confusion between these two terms even among so called atheists. The dictionary defninition is as follows:

Atheism : The view that there is no God. In other words the belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism: Unsure whether there is a God or not. They neither believe nor disbelieve.

But a lot of our atheist friends on Boards.ie will tell us that they do not say that there is no God. They just say that because (in their opinion) there is no evidence for God then they will not believe that there is a God, in other words they simply lack belief in God as apposed to possessing the belief that there is no God. Which means that they are either A) Not atheists per the dictionary definition or the dictionary definition of atheist is wrong.

If the dictionary definition for atheist is wrong, then atheists are the very same as agnostics, so what does one call someone who holds to the view (or who believes and positively asserts) that there is no God?

Theist - Believes in God
Atheist - Doesn't believe in God
Agnostic - Neither believes nor disbelieves in God
???????? - Believes there is no God

The agnostic option is an oxymoron position because whilst in the state of not believing in God (which is one of the states of agnosticism i.e. neither believes) they cannot be in the state of not not believing in God (i.e nor disbelieves).

Anyway my point is that if being atheist is simply not being sure about the existence of God or just lacking belief in God then your point is valid, but if not then the % you cited is even less because as we have seen on Boards many times before there are a lot of self proclaimed atheists who will not take the leap from agnosticism (viz not sure either way) to positively asserting that there is no God. Which means they are either not really atheists by the dictionary definition of the term and thus atheism is simply the same as agnosticism. Or atheism is the view that there is no God which would mean that the % of people who positively assert that there is no God is even less than the figure above. So which is it? How do you define atheism for this poll?

recedite

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Their suffering is caused by the greed of man, not God.
The earth has enough resources for everyone.

Not a good answer. If someone in Somalia dies during a drought induced famine, whose fault is it? Seems like you are saying its our fault in this part of the world for "letting" it happen. But what about when it happened 500 years ago, when nobody else knew it was happening?

In other words, that old chestnut; Why does God let bad things happen to good people? Let's assume for the purposes of the argument that some of the dying children are Coptic Christians here, in case you try to assert they are actually only "wicked people".

Cato Maior

Soul Winner wrote: »

What's the difference between atheism and agnosticism? There seems to be a lot of confusion between these two terms even among so called atheists. The dictionary defninition is as follows:

Atheism : The view that there is no God. In other words the belief that there is no God.

Agnosticism: Unsure whether there is a God or not. They neither believe nor disbelieve.

But a lot of our atheist friends on Boards.ie will tell us that they do not say that there is no God. They just say that because (in their opinion) there is no evidence for God then they will not believe that there is a God, in other words they simply lack belief in God as apposed to possessing the belief that there is no God. Which means that they are either A) Not atheists per the dictionary definition or the dictionary definition of atheist is wrong.

If the dictionary definition for atheist is wrong, then atheists are the very same as agnostics, so what does one call someone who holds to the view (or who believes and positively asserts) that there is no God?

Theist - Believes in God
Atheist - Doesn't believe in God
Agnostic - Neither believes nor disbelieves in God
???????? - Believes there is no God

The agnostic option is an oxymoron position because whilst in the state of not believing in God (which is one of the states of agnosticism i.e. neither believes) they cannot be in the state of not not believing in God (i.e nor disbelieves).

Anyway my point is that if being atheist is simply not being sure about the existence of God or just lacking belief in God then your point is valid, but if not then the % you cited is even less because as we have seen on Boards many times before there are a lot of self proclaimed atheists who will not take the leap from agnosticism (viz not sure either way) to positively asserting that there is no God. Which means they are either not really atheists by the dictionary definition of the term and thus atheism is simply the same as agnosticism. Or atheism is the view that there is no God which would mean that the % of people who positively assert that there is no God is even less than the figure above. So which is it? How do you define atheism for this poll?

A dictionary by necessity is brief. It is not a particularly useful tool to use a dictionary definition of any complex term, particularly philosophical ones, and present it as the definitive definition of that word. An understanding of the history of the term and how it has been used over the centuries is required.

Simply using a dictionary definition is a touch trite.

PDN

recedite wrote: »

Not a good answer. If someone in Somalia dies during a drought induced famine, whose fault is it? Seems like you are saying its our fault in this part of the world for "letting" it happen. But what about when it happened 500 years ago, when nobody else knew it was happening?

In other words, that old chestnut; Why does God let bad things happen to good people? Let's assume for the purposes of the argument that some of the dying children are Coptic Christians here, in case you try to assert they are actually only "wicked people".

Nobody here, as far as I can see, has asserted that everyone dies because of their own wickedness - so better to put that straw man to bed.

We live in a world where everything we touch has been shaped by human decisions. Do you really think that anyone dies purely because of a lack of rain in one area - now or 500 years ago? You don't think that human migration patterns, wars, unjust social and economic structures, or harmful religious folklore practices throughout history have contributed at all?

The Christian position is that this world was made good - but that the sinful decisions and choices of men have marred it. Sadly it is often the case that those who suffer the most are the powerless who are affectyed by decisions made by others. Our actions have consequences - for others as well as for ourselves.

Fanny Cradock

Ciaran0 wrote: »

A scenario for all the believers:
Say you had never heard of God. You had never experienced any religious tradition. You were raised to have a scientific mind, unbiased and open to new ideas and theories. You believed theories such as the Big Bang and evolution to be very decent guesses at what's happened given the evidence we've got.

Now someone tells you about God. An eternal being who knows all and sees all. He knows your every thought and action. He is all powerful and if you regularly pray to him, and do what he tells you to do he'll let you into his magical kingdom when you die. When you get there you'll live forever, but to do that you've got to follow his rules. He doesn't like when you eat certain meat. You have to fast on certain days, and not work on certain days. On those days you have to attend a ceremony to worship him. There are lots more rules, all laid out in this book. Written almost two thousand years ago, it tells the whole story. One of the most important bits is that his son was here on earth two millennia ago, preaching the word. We didn't like him at the time so we killed him off, even though he was doing all these wonderfully impossible miracles. Thankfully he came back to life for a short while to lay down the foundations of this religion. It's him we're named after. There are thousands of other variations but they're all wrong. How do we know? We just get this feeling about it.

You might be saying to yourself, "Surely I can't be expected to just buy into this and not ask why?"

But that's the best bit you see. This God chap will love you all the more for believing without any evidence. There's not even any point even trying to figure out why because God is beyond all our comprehension. You don't have to ask why because the answer is beyond you.

Also, he's very concerned about your sex life.

Would you buy into it??

Christians obviously dont share your understanding of God - so I'm not sure why you would think that your unsatisfactory approximation of Christianity should make for a sound basis of enquirey. It seems to me that you designed your scenario with the express intention of making it sound unacceptable. All you are basically asking is, "If you were really smart would you accept this really dumb thing? Look how dumb it is!".

Not only do you beg the question, you also presuppose that one can be unbiased (please show me such a person) and attempt to pit science against religion (It was atheists like Fred Hoyle who strongly resisted the Big Bang model because he thought that it implied some sort of God or super intellect - something he couldn't accept). Frankly speaking, your scenario isn't worth the electrons that you inconvenienced in displaying it on our screens.

Soul Winner

Cato Maior wrote: »

A dictionary by necessity is brief. It is not a particularly useful tool to use a dictionary definition of any complex term, particularly philosophical ones, and present it as the definitive definition of that word. An understanding of the history of the term and how it has been used over the centuries is required.

Simply using a dictionary definition is a touch trite.

OK then I invite you to proceed to enlighten us on the subject. I'm willing to throw out the dictionary here and read what you have to say about it. What do these terms mean? Is a theist someone who believes in God or not? Is an atheist someone who does not believe in God or not? and so on.. Please fill us in, I want to know. I prefer to have the terms I use to have universally agreed upon definitions before engaging in debate about them.

Thanks