Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Every criticism of Christianity falls flat on examination. Again, I doubt how robust any criticism of Christianity could be insofar as the critics choose to be ignorant of the Bible.

From your biased position, every criticism of Christianity will indeed fall flat. on that we agree.

joseph brand

philologos wrote: »

Then your position on Christianity is baseless. Your criticisms of Christianity will be forever inaccurate, because essentially you don't know what it is.
It's like doing a book review without having read the book. It's essentially refusing to even consider viewpoints which differ to your own.
This claim is baseless, and it is clear that you've not fully thought about Christianity.

You are right because you are christian.
You don't need to read: A) The Koran, because it's wrong. or
The Torah, it's also wrong.
I went one further and read neither.

philologos wrote: »

Actually, before I became a Christian, I was an agnostic. I came to believe in Jesus through discovering Him piece by piece. God essentially showed me who He was through His word.

As I was reading the Bible, I was constantly questioning its pages as I was trying to piece what this Christianity thing was about together. Needless to say I'm glad to God rescued me, and that He convicted me of the truth.

You can't know what the Bible is as a source at all. You've rejected it without having read it. Every claim that you make claiming that the Bible is a bad source can be safely put aside until you open your mind to consider it.

The parts in bold are a little vague. Wishy washy. I have to assume that you feel you really NEED god to exist. I suppose I'm lucky that I don't. There are many like yourself who go 'looking' for god. Others are forced to 'believe'. At least you weren't forced.

philologos wrote: »

Funnily enough, I found the same to be true of when I started to follow Jesus.

Your claim about atheism being progress is meaningless when you've never even bothered to consider the alternatives. You claim that atheism is an intellectual approach to life, but you're not showing me it. Rather from your demonstration atheism is a display of cold, closed-mindedness. That's not something I want to partake in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion#Suppression_of_scientific_progress

John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White, authors of the conflict thesis, have argued that when a religion offers a complete set of answers to the problems of purpose, morality, origins, or science, it often discourages exploration of those areas by suppressing curiosity, denies its followers a broader perspective, and can prevent social, moral and scientific progress. Examples of scientific suppression by the Roman Catholic Church include the trial of Galileo for arguing that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and the execution of scientist and philosopher Giordano Bruno.

If there is anything about Atheism which you find regressive, please tell me.

Furthermore, just listening to the vitriol spewed from the mouths of christians, directed at homosexuals, is enough to sicken any pragmatic person. It is utterly childish and they should be embarrassed. It is 'hateful speech' and 'threats of hell' which will help turn many more away. (Aside from the other 'troubles' the church is dealing trying not to deal with.

RichieC

Suppressing curiosity:

Ecclesiastes 1:18 :For in much wisdom is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow.

joseph brand

tommy2bad wrote: »

Hello neighbour

Off my lawn Flanders. (fixed that US spelling for ya)

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are they mutually exclusive?

They shouldn't be. But with the language coming from some christians you'd think they were. Also, religion does better in poorer areas amongst the ignorant. Go figure eh?

tommy2bad wrote: »

If the bible is not studied how are we to fully appreciate the whole of western art, law, literature, architecture and history
No other book has influenced so much.

Aren't there History books for that? Or did you mean something else?

La Petite Fleur

tommy2bad wrote: »

Most successful people have been found to have psychopathic tendencies.

Define 'successful people' ? Successful at exactly what ? What is a 'sucessful' person ?

philologos

joseph brand wrote: »

You are right because you are christian.
You don't need to read: A) The Koran, because it's wrong. or
The Torah, it's also wrong.
I went one further and read neither.

I've read the Torah, and the Qur'an to a large extent. I've also read quite a few of the new-atheist critiques.

joseph brand wrote: »

The parts in bold are a little vague. Wishy washy. I have to assume that you feel you really NEED god to exist. I suppose I'm lucky that I don't. There are many like yourself who go 'looking' for god. Others are forced to 'believe'. At least you weren't forced.

You or I wouldn't exist without God. Existence is absurd in the absence of God ultimately. The very fact of existence right down to what purpose you and I

Ultimately, you can live and pretend that God doesn't exist, but everything around us screams out His existence as far as I can tell.

The point as far as Christianity is concerned is that you or I wouldn't exist without God.

joseph brand wrote: »

If there is anything about Atheism which you find regressive, please tell me.

Plenty of things. First and foremost, it's denying people the opportunity to know their Creator, and know why they are here, and what is the point of their lives.

joseph brand wrote: »

Furthermore, just listening to the vitriol spewed from the mouths of christians, directed at homosexuals, is enough to sicken any pragmatic person. It is utterly childish and they should be embarrassed. It is 'hateful speech' and 'threats of hell' which will help turn many more away. (Aside from the other 'troubles' the church is dealing trying not to deal with.

"The Church". Which church? -

If it is vitriolic to say that there is a God who created us, and cares for us firstly in so far as He gave us standards for how we should live and prosper in Creation. Secondly in so far as even when we rejected His standard, He brought His Son Jesus into the world to bring us back to Him, and save us from the punishment we deserve for rejecting Him.

The world is God's creation, and He is perfectly entitled to punish for our clear rejection of Him. Yet, He has forgiven us if we are willing to accept it and come into relationship with Him.

That's fantastic news as far as I can tell.

tommy2bad

joseph brand wrote: »

Off my lawn Flanders. (fixed that US spelling for ya)

Thank You, spell checking software is American

They shouldn't be. But with the language coming from some christians you'd think they were. Also, religion does better in poorer areas amongst the ignorant. Go figure eh?

Like America?

Aren't there History books for that? Or did you mean something else?

Of course I meant something else.
Context and the ability to understand where the people that created these things were coming from. The bible is the most important collection of books because of it's influence on the development of western thought. OK some Greek stuff was added to that. The Koran wouldn't exist without the bible nor the book of Mormon, The magna carter, the declaration of independences.
You cant appreciate Dante, Shakespeare, or Dickens. Understand the significance of the Sistine Chapel, the art of everyone from Michaelangelo to Dali.
Not actual reading the bible is a big omission in anyones life. Hell its the context for Narnia and LOTR.

You don't have to believe in God to understand the importance of the bible. Your dismissing it as religious propaganda just show how ill informed you are.
And a Ballingary man should know better

tommy2bad

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

Define 'successful people' ? Successful at exactly what ? What is a 'sucessful' person ?

Study I came across that showed a correlation of psychopathic traits in the personalities of CEO's and top achieving athletics and successful politicians.
In the case of politicians it probably means 'won elections'
As to what constitutes success? For the purposes of the study.. top of profession, winner? beyond that ? Your guess is as good as mine.

ISAW

Zorbas wrote: »

This does not contradict the finding that "In 1994/1995, church donors were also likely to donate larger amounts to charity but not in 1999/2000. This may be linked to the declining levels of church attendance over the 1990’s (Eurobarometer). "
Traditional support for anything is a doubtful argument especially in the new model Catholic Church.

I dont think you are getting the point.

If between 1995 and 2000 people went to church and then didnt go as often and if charities were outside the church gate then the people who might have donated werent there. It isnt necessarily a question of them not giving as much because they dont want to it might be a case of them not having the box rattled in their face outside church. the point is that the lower donations might actually be linked to them not practicing their faith as much as they used to. you are trying to make out that they just give less rather then less people being there to give.


[/Quote] page 119 states "as households became wealthier they donated relatively less of their income to charity".

So your above contention can be explained by rich getting richer and poor getting poorer. the poor then cant donate at all but the rich can donate more but donate even less. the idea that rich people donate is not an argument that religious people are less charitable.

The finding was that religious do not donate more which was contrary to PDNs statement.

the finding was : "as households became wealthier they donated relatively less of their income to charity". Not "as people became more religious" they donated less.
In fact above they found that as people became less religious they donated less .


Page 120 says older people heading up a household donate more. i suggest older people are more likely to practice a religion.

Where is the evidence that older people are more likely to practice a religion and even if they were the finding was that religious do not donate more.

where is you evidence on falling church attendence and Im sure if you look at it demographically you will find that the people who are still attending are older in profile.




but the clincher is page 125 which says households which make voluntary contributions to their church are more likely to donate to charity. Not alone that but it says this is in agreement with earlier findings.

"more likely" does not alter the findings that church goers do not donate more than others.

okay I know this is only comparing 1995 with 2000 but


Page 128 says families that made voluntary contributions to their church danate six per cent more then those who do not donate to church. the six per cent difference is not there in 2000. The reason that church donations overall are lower is clear as far as i can see. Less people are going to church. those that go contribute MORE than those that dont!

The thesis is imited in analysis . It certainly does not prove religious adherents donate less to charity or being religious causes less contributions. In fact just one church charity Vincent De Paul spends as much on poverty as the entire Irish State budget for the Third World.


They do not donate as much as they used to because some richer people donate less and because they dont go to church as much as they used to.

So PND was not wrong

Nothing you have said helps your frinds postion which is wrong.

how is he wrong? All your limited thesis says is that religious households contributed more then non religious ones in 1995 and then in 2000 when they practiced religion less still didnt contribute less than non religious households but did not contribute as much as in 1995.

Who said he is my friend?
i barely know the guy.
I do respêct his opinion and trust him however.

Edit: see double hurdle Probit and tobit statistical models in appendix A pages 140-145

Look at the variable HOLY -this is the one used to indicate the "holy" households

in all cases for 1995 and 2000 this variable shows (denoted by ***) a statistical significance at the 1% level. for sociological purposes even the 5% level is significant . what thisis saying is that the chances of this happening by accident are more than a hundred to one. chances oif WHAT? -chances of a "holy" household donating MORE than average just by accident!

PDN is shown not to be wrong by this thesis which though limited says the opposite of what you claim it does!

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

If you wish to consider the alternatives, one must put aside nearly a life time of reading. I assume you've read the Koran, the Vidas, the book of mormon, attended a Scientology seminar... the list of alternatives is as long as my arm.

Yes on the Koran yes on the vidas Not all of the Book of Mormon. quite a lot on Scientology. Indeed quite a lot more on all sorts of other cults. Just around christmas i stsrted looking into Jehovas Witnessess (see the thread on that) I guess Im a quick reader and put together an analysis quite rapidly. I have read other stuff that grabbed my interest including gnostic writings and philosophers like Eric Fromm. But Ill bet you havent read the Post nicean Fathers or the ante nicean fathers. Ill bet you havent a clue about theology Christology the historicity of jesus , the history of the church or a myriad other related topics you ignorantly expound upon.

you come across as the typical (excusing the reasonable A&A people here) atheistic "all religion is nonsensical claptrap" philosophy 101 student who thinks they know it all but really knows very little about the subject. I could go on but wont save to say "a little learning is a dangerous thing" . guess where that came from?

Feel free to stay and learn something.

If you have a present for someone, and that person does not take it, to whom does the gift belong?

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

From your biased position, every criticism of Christianity will indeed fall flat. on that we agree.

i dont think you are getting it!

He is saying from his experience of numerous points raised they all fall flat on their face when subjected to reason. His argument is based on logic reason and experience and not on blind faith. It is YOU who are saying you are ignorant of the actual field and who are arguing from ignorance.

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

There /is/ much to criticise, though. I don't think Joe is ignorant of Christianity, he was raised, like me, by Christian parents as a Catholic.

We can only go by what he states. He stated he hadent read the bible.
By the way this is part of the reason i point to the philosophy 101 types. they seem to think that Christianity is only about the Bible. that would be a rather Protestant leaning. It may be that they think Christianity is fundamentalist biblical US interpretations which are certainly an easy target to attack but represent a tiny minority of fringe Christianity if Christian at all.

ISAW

joseph brand wrote: »

Y

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_religion#Suppression_of_scientific_progress


What nonsense. Developments in Science and Christianity are practically married since Thomas Aquinas.

If there is anything about Atheism which you find regressive, please tell me.

how about moral relativism and the fact that all atheistic societies in history were murder regimes that produced nothing but piles of skulls and economic decline as opposed to christian countries that developed science economics and civilization?

Furthermore, just listening to the vitriol spewed from the mouths of christians, directed at homosexuals, is enough to sicken any pragmatic person. It is utterly childish and they should be embarrassed. It is 'hateful speech' and 'threats of hell' which will help turn many more away. (Aside from the other 'troubles' the church is dealing trying not to deal with.

that is about as anti christian as the so called christian hate mongers who spêw such vitriol! i,m not surprised your philosophy 101 arguments have developed into "christians are anti science" or "christians hate homosexuals"

Whatever next?

Claims God in the Bible commands his people to rape?
Claims the Bible demands the Earth is several thousand years old?*

We have had all the smart ass student philosophy 101 stuff already.
Try learning something and producing an actual plausible argument that hasent been demolished years ago eh?

RichieC

ISAW wrote: »

i dont think you are getting it!

He is saying from his experience of numerous points raised they all fall flat on their face when subjected to reason. His argument is based on logic reason and experience and not on blind faith. It is YOU who are saying you are ignorant of the actual field and who are arguing from ignorance.

Blind faith by very definition cannot be based on logic or reason. It's called a faith for a reason. Believing in it so so deep seated in the psyche that your brain will reject any argument against it.

What I see a lot is Christians using the old argument of us Atheists being ignorant of Christianity. Very well, I don't claim to be a theology student.

My argument starts and ends at the question of a supreme creator of everything. the topic of this thread, BTW. I do not need to read every religious text in the world to come to the conclusion that it is not all that likely.

I do not accept a religious persons claims that they are arguing from logic. they are not. you are not. you are defending an ideology.

La Petite Fleur

RichieC wrote: »

My argument starts and ends at the question of a supreme creator of everything. the topic of this thread, BTW. I do not need to read every religious text in the world to come to the conclusion that it is not all that likely.

I do not accept a religious persons claims that they are arguing from logic. they are not. you are not. you are defending an ideology.

Im afraid it is not as cut and dry, and black and white as that. If only it were.

As a starting point 'God' can be considered an infinite spirit. Without any irrefutable evidence either way, it is certainly very logical to rationalise that some sort of infinite spirit could exist, either on a purely physical level, or a metaphysical level, or both. Once you have clearly established that there is no irrefutable evidence for either existance or non existance, then you can move onto personally deciding that, on the balance of probabilty, that such a spirit probably does exist, or probably does not exist. That's what you call a logical and rational decision.

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

Blind faith by very definition cannot be based on logic or reason. It's called a faith for a reason. Believing in it so so deep seated in the psyche that your brain will reject any argument against it.

Please let's not start the 'blind faith' nonsense again. Another poster, many pages back in this thread, made similar misrepresentations. Do we have to keep going round in circles?

Christian faith is not blind faith. Christian faith means to trust and follow Christ based on our assessment of the evidence available to us, but lacking definitive 100% proof. It is the same kind of reasoning on which people make other major decisions such as who to marry etc.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

Please let's not start the 'blind faith' nonsense again. Another poster, many pages back in this thread, made similar misrepresentations. Do we have to keep going round in circles?

Christian faith is not blind faith. Christian faith means to trust and follow Christ based on our assessment of the evidence available to us, but lacking definitive 100% proof. It is the same kind of reasoning on which people make other major decisions such as who to marry etc.

It appears that we do PDN, and not just on this topic. In the last analysis belief is an act of faith lacking as you say 100% proof.

It is not so for an atheist I would think .

It is not the same reasoning as marriage at all- how can it be ? For a non believer it may possibly be so as to him or her that is just another decision, albeit an important one.

But the existence of God to a believer surely is just on another scale as to be beyond comparision. One can walk away from a entering a marriage but to walk away from a call from God is not possible without dire consequences ( for a believer) or so I would have thought .

tommy2bad

One can walk away from a entering a marriage but to walk away from a call from God is not possible without dire consequences ( for a believer) or so I would have thought .

Marienbad if you remove the bit in bold it better reflects the feelings of this believer. I imagine it's the same for others. I have known people who lost faith so its possible but as Beckett said "God? He doesn't exist. The Bastard"

philologos

Anyone who has rejected God faces the consequences of rejecting Him. Everyone who rejects Him faces this. There will be a judgement for all humanity. Christians have already accepted Jesus as their Lord and as a result have been saved by His grace.

PDN is saying essentially that through the world around us, and through looking at the Bible, we can see God's faithfulness around us, we can see how the world shows signs of God's work, in how we operate as human beings, and also in the mere idea of existence itself. We can also look very clearly to the history of Jesus, the early Christian church, archaeology amongst a lot of other things to see how Christianity conforms to reality.

We've not been left without any scrape of a reason for believing in Jesus irrespective as to how much people would like to think so.

tommy2bad

philologos;
We've not been left without any scrape of a reason for believing in Jesus irrespective as to how much people would like to think so.

Some can rationalize this evidence away as we see form this thread, at the end of the day some 'leap of faith' is involved or are you sugesting works?

RichieC

philologos wrote: »

Anyone who has rejected God faces the consequences of rejecting Him. Everyone who rejects Him faces this. There will be a judgement for all humanity. Christians have already accepted Jesus as their Lord and as a result have been saved by His grace.

PDN is saying essentially that through the world around us, and through looking at the Bible, we can see God's faithfulness around us, we can see how the world shows signs of God's work, in how we operate as human beings, and also in the mere idea of existence itself. We can also look very clearly to the history of Jesus, the early Christian church, archaeology amongst a lot of other things to see how Christianity conforms to reality.

We've not been left without any scrape of a reason for believing in Jesus irrespective as to how much people would like to think so.

I see no evidence of a creator looking around this planet. none at all. I see barley controlled Chaos. Selfish exploitation, starving humans and the threat of an all out war. I see some of the most guilty countries of the above also being some of the most religious.

We have explained how we as a race and all other animals came about without requiring a creator. It's simply not needed as an explanation any more.

Once we saw lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes and storms as gods wrath, now we know what they are. We have a fairly robust explanation for how the universe began, though, unlike religion, it's open to revision and correction.

You see god everywhere, it's understandable as you have obviously invested a lot of time to your faith. It is not however some self evident fact that I just do not get. No amount of reading the bible will make me see the world differently. People who want, or need to find god will find god.

I will not suffer for rejecting one of the religions that happens to be around while I'm on this earth. If I was to fear that wrath I would have to pray to every god currently praised and every god ever to be invented in human history. I like to enjoy myself so I do not dedicate time to pleasing other peoples imaginations. It's simply not an option.

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

I see no evidence of a creator looking around this planet. none at all. I see barley controlled Chaos. Selfish exploitation, starving humans and the threat of an all out war. I see some of the most guilty countries of the above also being some of the most religious.

We have explained how we as a race and all other animals came about without requiring a creator. It's simply not needed as an explanation any more.

Once we saw lighting, volcanoes, earthquakes and storms as gods wrath, now we know what they are. We have a fairly robust explanation for how the universe began, though, unlike religion, it's open to revision and correction.

You see god everywhere, it's understandable as you have obviously invested a lot of time to your faith. It is not however some self evident fact that I just do not get. No amount of reading the bible will make me see the world differently. People who want, or need to find god will find god.

I will not suffer for rejecting one of the religions that happens to be around while I'm on this earth. If I was to fear that wrath I would have to pray to every god currently praised and every god ever to be invented in human history. I like to enjoy myself so I do not dedicate time to pleasing other peoples imaginations. It's simply not an option.

That's fine, so you reach a position (atheism) by faith. We all assess evidence differently.

philologos

I don't know if a leap is involved so much. As much as I like Soren Kierkegaard who came up with that idea, I don't believe it's an accurate representation of what Christianity is like. Paul in Romans tells us that by the very Creation itself God has made Himself evident to us (Romans 1:20). I believe that Christianity makes better sense of reality than other forms of thought, including atheism.

Christianity presents the world as fallen through sin. There's plenty of evidence of that around us. Pick up a newspaper tomorrow morning and read through it, and see if you can't find me anything evil in there. I know that looking back through my life, I can't say that I'm entirely pure of what is evil. Indeed John tells us in one of his letters that anyone who does claim this makes God out to be a liar (1 John 1:10).

We can see evidence of God's existence in pondering the question of who made us and why we are here. We can also see evidence of God's existence in how ethical action works. We largely work on universal ethical propositions of right and wrong, even if we claim to deny this. If we are wronged, we don't claim that the person might think he is right, we claim that they have wronged us. We presume that it is objectively clear that this is so. This is reason to believe that God has given us a conscience in common, we expect that the other knows what is good, and what is evil for this reason.

God has given us an abundance of evidence through archaeological sites in the Biblical texts agreeing with His word, through historical events external to the Bible agreeing largely with His word, and people largely agreeing with His word. God has also given us an abundance of reasons to believe and trust in Him due to Him making Jesus manifest. We have Old Testament prophesy telling us of Jesus' life about 600 years before it happened. We have several historical accounts of Jesus' life external to the Bible.

God has given us good reason to trust in the death and resurrection of Jesus through the history of the early church. Why would the disciples after Jesus' death simply go around claiming that Jesus had rose from the dead if it hadn't happened? Why would they risk death in Asia Minor for a lie? We are told that there were up to 500 witnesses of the risen Jesus, were they all deluded?

We also have the case for the authenticity of God's word. Could it all be fiction? Arguably, but if one works through Paul's narrative as a convert in Galatians as to how he became a Christian, and given how consistent his letters are with Gospel events it seems unlikely. If you do the maths from Paul's life in Galatians 1 and 2 and then compare it with Jesus' death and resurrection it is striking how similar Paul's account of Christianity is with other accounts of Christianity. It leaves very little time for the Apostles before him to conjure together an elaborate tale. It also leaves very little reason to go out and risk death.

Also, another reason why I regard the New Testament as being reliable is simply because of how honest it is. It isn't written by people who wish to lord their authority over the world. The Gospels present the disciples in a humbling light. As people who are largely clueless about the big picture until the end. People who are stubborn and divisive and people who are sinners just like you and I. The Gospels also present some things which would have been embarrassing in Jewish and Roman society, such as women being the first to the tomb. This wouldn't be a detail that you would have included to present Christianity in the best way to Jewish and Roman people. The alternative is that it is true.

There are plenty of reasons to believe in Jesus if we're just simply willing to look into it. His word is faithful and accurate to this day. We can be thankful for that in the 21st century that God's word still holds up strongly. I care about it and I long for it to prosper, I believe it presents a more honest and reasonable narrative than anything any new-atheist can ever offer me. It is a life transforming truth that will change our lives forever if we accept it. Jesus gave us a new relationship with God so that we can live for Him and dwell with Him for eternity. That's incredible, and there's plenty of reason to believe it.

RichieC: You mention war. Jesus very clearly mentions that in the time between His death and His return that there would be wars, and rumours of wars, famines, etc. These things shouldn't surprise Christians, because they are signs leading up to the point in time when Jesus will return to judge, and usher in the new Creation. The very fact that these things happen, are a sign that Jesus' return is immanent, and that there will be judgement.

PDN

philologos wrote: »

I don't know if a leap is involved so much.

More of a step really.

RichieC

PDN wrote: »

That's fine, so you reach a position (atheism) by faith. We all assess evidence differently.

You may twist it anyway you like. My stance is not a rejection of god so much as not taking is seriously enough to merit a belief.

I take the fact that so many people believ in it serious

We are not born believing in god only to reject it later on. It is an idea, or meme which we are forced by coercion and propaganda into having to take seriously.

"it's a faith that there is no god" - it's simply flawed logic, and manipulating the debate in a way that stacks it in your favour.

Again, I say. It is not a default human condition to be faithful to a god. One can actually easily dismiss ideas that are just beyond the scope of reality. Is it faith I do not believe in UFOs? Thor? Santa Clause?

philologos

RichieC: The thing is all I've ever seen from your posts is just moaning about Christianity. Nothing you've presented actually gives me a positive reason as to why I should be an atheist rather than follow another religion. Even then, I haven't seen much that would devastate my Christian faith into pieces. Yet, throughout the years, there have been a lot of Christians offering positive reasons for why they believe in Jesus and trust in Him.

It seems a little bit disproportionate. The more and more I go on the less and less satisfied I am in the new-atheist cop out (and it is fairly recent - within the last decade) that the burden is not on them. However, if they want to convince me to become an atheist and reject Christianity, to a certain degree the burden is on you to convince me that God is a fable. Much of the new-atheist argument is simply repeating what they claim ad-infinitum without any positive contribution to the argument. E.G God doesn't exist, God's a fable, God's a delusion, God's like Santa for grown ups. The big question is Why is He any of these things? Answers are forthcoming on those really.

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

We are not born believing in god only to reject it later on. It is an idea, or meme which we are forced by coercion and propaganda into having to take seriously.

So I abandoned atheism (enforced on me as a child) and chose to become a Christian. And you, with some wonderful wishful thinking, ascribe that to coercion and propaganda? :rolleyes:

RichieC

I do not ask that you give up your faith, nor even want you too. I recognise that it can be beneficial to those who need it.

It's not just Christianity anyway. It is all religions. I don't consider any of them above the other.

The burden of proof is on the religious. Nothing you say can change that. It is you making the grand suggestion that there is an infinite wisdom, timeless master of the entire universe. I am simply rejecting that premise, why do you think the Burden of proof is on me?

Proof of Jesus existing is no proof of God either. there's far more proof that Mohammed existed, does that make the Qur'an true?

RichieC

PDN wrote: »

So I abandoned atheism (enforced on me as a child) and chose to become a Christian. And you, with some wonderful wishful thinking, ascribe that to coercion and propaganda? :rolleyes:

Well the atheism was enforced on you. so evidently, yes.

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

Well the atheism was enforced on you. so evidently, yes.

Faced with such 'logic' I won't even attempt to take this further.

Good night!

La Petite Fleur

RichieC wrote: »

People who want, or need to find god will find god.

I don't agree. I hear this myth and blanket assumption regarding 'need' from atheists a lot. To be totally honest, I didn't need belief in God in any shape or form, my life would have been so much simpler and less restrictive if I could have become a full blown Atheist, but once having examined all the arguments, I personally, for me, could not find, and have still yet to see presented, any convincing rational logical reason, never mind evidence to come to the conclusion that God cannot exist. (Quite the contrary for me in fact). Just in the exact same way you have come the the counter conclusion and counter belief for yourself. I'm sure you did'nt need to disbelieve in the possibity of God, or be an Atheist. You've arrived at that conclusion for yourself.

marienbad

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

I don't agree. I hear this myth and blanket assumption regarding 'need' from atheists a lot. To be totally honest, I didn't need belief in God in any shape or form, my life would have been so much simpler and less restrictive if I could have become a full blown Atheist, but once having examined all the arguments, I personally, for me, could not find, and have still yet to see presented, any convincing rational logical reason, never mind evidence to come to the conclusion that God cannot exist. (Quite the contrary for me in fact). Just in the exact same way you have come the the counter conclusion and counter belief for yourself. I'm sure you did'nt need to disbelieve in the possibity of God, or be an Atheist. You've arrived at that conclusion for yourself.

I notice you use an unusual phrasing -''evidence to come to the conclusion than God cannot exist''. What does that mean ? It can be applied to anything. Christianity Islam Shamanism .

I don't think atheism comes to a counter conclusion , it takes the available evidence and comes to a conclusion , which is constantly modified as more information comes to light. Nowhere in that journey is there evidence of the existence of a god.


No matter how you cut it you cannot prove that God exists, sooner or later you must take a leap (a step according to PDN) of faith.

That fact that atheism cannot prove God does not exist is irrelevant

La Petite Fleur

marienbad wrote: »

That fact that atheism cannot prove God does not exist is irrelevant

It is very relevant. Never mind proof, if Atheism could just offer me a single convincing argument to support it's beliefs (dis beliefs, or whatever term you prefer), never mind a shred of evidence, that an infinite spirit cannot exist, I would quite happily take a step, leap of faith etc. to become an Atheist instead. I am one very small biological being, and, never mind the metaphysical, there is at least one extremely large universe (where the law of physics has proved, energy cannot be created or destroyed) and perhaps multiverse / multi demension out there as well. Each of us have to be true to our own conscience when considering the laws of probability.

RichieC

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

It is very relevant. Never mind proof, if Atheism could just offer me a single convincing argument to support it's beliefs (dis beliefs, or whatever term you prefer), never mind a shred of evidence, that an infinite spirit cannot exist, I would quite happily take a step, leap of faith etc. to become an Atheist instead. I am one very small biological being, and, never mind the metaphysical, there is at least one extremely large universe (where the law of physics has proved, energy cannot be created or destroyed) and perhaps multiverse / multi demension out there as well. Each of us have to be true to our own conscience when considering the laws of probability.

It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.

marienbad

La Petite Fleur wrote: »

It is very relevant. Never mind proof, if Atheism could just offer me a single convincing argument to support it's beliefs (dis beliefs, or whatever term you prefer), never mind a shred of evidence, that an infinite spirit cannot exist, I would quite happily take a step, leap of faith etc. to become an Atheist instead. I am one very small biological being, and, never mind the metaphysical, there is at least one extremely large universe (where the law of physics has proved, energy cannot be created or destroyed) and perhaps multiverse / multi demension out there as well. Each of us have to be true to our own conscience when considering the laws of probability.

You overate the powers of atheism - it is the belief in the non exixtance of God or Gods- the end. After that you can believe in anything you wish ,with just one exception-the belief in God.

Here is a little ditty to the choices facing atheists and theists

You can try for secularisim-totalitarism
become a veggie,a vegan- even a pagan,
but not the ones that belives in a sprite
But you can't believe in God of Light
.
According to the Book of The Propher ISAW
Become a dictator and elimate the creator
Burn churches rape nuns, alas to heaven they go
while you most certainly will be be left below

To those that believe - they are offered a lot
a guarantee to avoid that place that is hot
To those that refuse to bend the knee
the face of God never to see

to those that believe that choice is most appealing
all this and heaven too when you give up on reasoning
But dont be suprised on entering The Holy City
to find that we are there because God took pity .

Afterall we followed our concience as we saw fit
and did what did because it was right
And not from fear of been denied the Light

PDN

RichieC wrote: »

It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.

Not at all. This is the Christianity Forum, so if you choose to come in here and tell Christians that God doesn't exist then the burden of proof is on you.

Of course the opposite woul;d be true if I were to start soapboxing in the Atheism and Agnosticism Forum. The burden of proof would be on me to demonstrate that the beliefs of the resident posters were wrong. But if I were to post in there and say, "Go on! Prove that God doesn't exist!" then I would be breaking the cardinal rule of boards.ie - namely 'Don't be a dick.'

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

Blind faith by very definition cannot be based on logic or reason. It's called a faith for a reason. Believing in it so so deep seated in the psyche that your brain will reject any argument against it.

do you understand the difference between
NOT blind faith
and
blind faith?

What I see a lot is Christians using the old argument of us Atheists being ignorant of Christianity. Very well, I don't claim to be a theology student.

i am not interested in "argument from authority" but I am interested in logical and reasonable arguments based on facts. when you gave an opinion about the Bible you admitted it was based on ignorance of the Bible. It is a bit like someone telling you about UFO or how the Laws of physics are wrong but have no idea about physics or about how UFOs might work or from what wlien society they are coming. But they will insist they are rtight and the people who have studied the subject are wrong. Fair enough. Care to SHOW US where we are going wrong?

My argument starts and ends at the question of a supreme creator of everything. the topic of this thread, BTW. I do not need to read every religious text in the world to come to the conclusion that it is not all that likely.

So what? you dont have to. while it is necessary for debate logic qnd reason is not sufficient for society. We need other things such as values or morals or judgement.
The societies based on you "there is no god " philosophy all perished after causing genocide and economic collapse and contributing nothing to civilization. christianity thrived and grew and built things and is still around.

I do not accept a religious persons claims that they are arguing from logic. they are not. you are not. you are defending an ideology.

And the evidence you have to support this unsupported opinion is....?

Obviously it is very simple to produce a single illogical argument so feel free to do so.

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

While ISAW and I are not friends, googling to cherrypick data to suit your viewpoints is a dangerous game, particularly if you are unwilling or unable to read your sources properly.

The report states that, in both 1994/1995 and in 1999/2000 those who gave donations to churches were also more likely to give to non-religious charitiable causes.

It also states that, of those who gave donations, the size of donations given by church donors were larger in the earlier survey but not in the later survey.

The conclusion to be drawn from that is clear:

1. Church donors are more likely to give to non-religious charities than are non-church donors.
2. Both church donors and non-church donors give pretty much the same size of donations.
3. Therefore the average church donor gives more to non-religious charities each year than does the non-church donor.

"

Let me try once more to cut and paste the relevant sections from the report which is highly regarded and refers to this country rather than the US which is not relevant to this thread:

Report Quote: "It was expected that households who donate to their church would also donate to charity. In both years households that give to their church are more likely to donate to charity. In 1994/1995, church donors were also likely to donate larger amounts to charity but not in 1999/2000. This may be linked to the declining levels of church attendance over the 1990’s (Eurobarometer)". Page 13,
Conclusion

Report Quote from Page 14: "In 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the donors who gave the most included those with higher income, age, education and social status. In 1994/1995, households that gave to their church also gave more to charity. This effect is not present in 1999/2000".

Surely the report is clear that religious are not more likely to be charitable.


From: THE DETERMINANTS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

RichieC

ISAW wrote: »

So what? you dont have to. while it is necessary for debate logic qnd reason is not sufficient for society. We need other things such as values or morals or judgement.
The societies based on you "there is no god " philosophy all perished after causing genocide and economic collapse and contributing nothing to civilization. christianity thrived and grew and built things and is still around.

All these states you speak of were not based on "there is no god" they were communist authoritarian regimes. the leaders sought to replace traditional religion with one of their own, namely the state/great leader/economic system is the new god.

You cannot blame atheism on this. Even though, you do so regularly, it appears you have that talking point on speed dial.

Atheism does not cause genocide or economic collapse. centralised power that ignores the masses in favour of military spending causes the latter. Revolt by said or fear of leads to genocides and mass murder.

I consider my self hard atheist, yet, I do not favour state sanctioned atheism. rather, secular governance. People should be free to worship whatever and whoever they like. The state should not promote any religion.

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Let me try once more to cut and paste the relevant sections from the report which is highly regarded and refers to this country rather than the US which is not relevant to this thread:

No, that is where you are wrong. This thread refers to atheism and Christianity in general, not just in Ireland. And this little segment of the thread was initiated by Joseph Brand's snide little dig at philologos about evangelical megachurches - complete with a photo of one of their buildings from the United States.

Report Quote: "It was expected that households who donate to their church would also donate to charity. In both years households that give to their church are more likely to donate to charity. In 1994/1995, church donors were also likely to donate larger amounts to charity but not in 1999/2000. This may be linked to the declining levels of church attendance over the 1990’s (Eurobarometer)". Page 13,
Conclusion

Report Quote from Page 14: "In 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the donors who gave the most included those with higher income, age, education and social status. In 1994/1995, households that gave to their church also gave more to charity. This effect is not present in 1999/2000".

Surely the report is clear that religious are not more likely to be charitable.

For goodness' sake, read your own quotes. Facepalm time.

Northclare

Is there anything wrong with being in collision with the Holy Book ?

Would the sinners and non believers who go back to God have a better understanding of Gods forgiveness because they gave into their selfish desires and wants etc and learned through pain and utter spiritual upheaval what it is like to cross the Kedron like Jesus did ?

After all it is a life time journey from conception to death or from baptism to the last rites.

RichieC

Northclare wrote: »

Is there anything wrong with being in collision with the Holy Book ?

Would the sinners and non believers who go back to God have a better understanding of Gods forgiveness because they gave into their selfish desires and wants etc and learned through pain and utter spiritual upheaval what it is like to cross the Kedron like Jesus did ?

After all it is a life time journey from conception to death or from baptism to the last rites.

I think it would be safe to assume that if a person went from being atheist to being religious they would become very evangelical about it. It's typical of other things like Politics for instance, the marxist who learns life lessons that sets them on a course to becoming fiscal libertarians. it becomes central to their story.

You'll notice if you go to see motivational speakers a lot of them will have a story that begins with them living in cars under bridges.

The "neo conservatives" often describe themselves as ex liberals who were robbed by reality only to realise the dangerous world they live in. it gives them a narrative.

Any good speaker on religion will have their tale of dark years as a non believer.

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

It is you making the grand claim. As I said to Phil, the burden of proof is on you. Frankly, though, I really do not care if you're religious or not. I have nothing to prove, literally.

nonsense ! Above yo claimed :
We are not born believing in god only to reject it later on. It is an idea, or meme which we are forced by coercion and propaganda into having to take seriously.

you seem like one of these people who went for the popular anti theist elements who promoted memetics and its journal before the whole idea collapsed into its own logic.

we have been over the voer reliance in quasi scientific theories like memetics which try like eugenics to attribute biological concepts like "evolution" to sociological contexts.

ISAW

RichieC wrote: »

All these states you speak of were not based on "there is no god" they were communist authoritarian regimes.

No they werent. china was atheist and zanti religious and atheist. when they relaxed their enforced atheism they still remained communist and authoritarian. But they began to prosper.

Cuba is communist but not anti Church. It has ta higher literacy rate than the US!

the leaders sought to replace traditional religion with one of their own, namely the state/great leader/economic system is the new god.

The old shell game of defining anti religious expressedmly atheist countries as "religious"
But you cant define anti christian states as christian can you?
So how come all the atheist anti christian states failed or committed genocide and few if any of the christian ones did?

You cannot blame atheism on this. Even though, you do so regularly, it appears you have that talking point on speed dial.

I have the stated pôlicieds of "there is no god" states Guess what the definiution of atheims is? Hint: there is no god
Whenever in history atheism was central to any movement it resulted in piles of corpses.
you cant claim "there is no god"=ATHEISM by definition is religion!
well you can but you would be logically incorrect.

Atheism does not cause genocide or economic collapse. centralised power that ignores the masses in favour of military spending causes the latter. Revolt by said or fear of leads to genocides and mass murder.

Cuba non atheist with huge military presence -no genocide
Yugoslavia under Tito centralised power huge Military spending - no atheism and no genocide.

whatever OTHER excuse you come up with there are exceptions . Except atheism.
How come that?

I consider my self hard atheist, yet, I do not favour state sanctioned atheism. rather, secular governance. People should be free to worship whatever and whoever they like. The state should not promote any religion.

But secular countries and religious countries do not always have genocide . atheistic countries always do! Totalitarian ones dont always or communist ones or religious ones or dictatorships or authoritarians. Just officially atheist always do. how come?

Zorbas

PDN wrote: »

No, that is where you are wrong. This thread refers to atheism and Christianity in general, not just in Ireland. And this little segment of the thread was initiated by Joseph Brand's snide little dig at philologos about evangelical megachurches - complete with a photo of one of their buildings from the United States.
For goodness' sake, read your own quotes. Facepalm time.

Now you have changed from challenging the report which clearly states that the religious are not more generous than those of no faith. You are trying to now claim that our discussion was not in the context of Ireland,
Check this out:
My Post 2425: Lets face it: the vast majority of churches do not have a soul in them i.e. empty.
The reason is that there are a lot of people turning against either organised religion or religion altogether. Its a shame that so much money is spent on keeping such large edifices maintained and heated when some people cant afford to keep their homes going.

Your Post 2426 in response : Surveys have shown that people who attend church regularly actually give more money on average to non-religious charities than do non-churchgoers. If you really feel compassion for people who can't afford to keep their homes going then you would be better off digging into your pocket and helping them rather indulging in petty criticism of those who do the most to help them.

Even ISAW knew comments were in reference to Ireland Quote “a Masters thesis in business 2005 looking at donations over the Celtic tiger years. I have no intention of doubting the source. If alan Matthews examined it and approved oit it has attained a level of credibility”
Your post again showing you understood we were talking about Rep of Ireland:
So you were referring to megachurches in the Republic of Ireland then? That's interesting. And how many such megachurches in this country do you think there are?

My response to above:
You are confused - I never mentioned megachurches. I did note that your statement that religious were more charitable was incorrect.
Perhaps you wished to address that issue. No problem.

Post 2442 You continued to refer to the Republic of Ireland report but misunderstood the findings ; quote: “The report states that, in both 1994/1995 and in 1999/2000 those who gave donations to churches were also more likely to give to non-religious charitiable causes. It also states that, of those who gave donations, the size of donations given by church donors were larger in the earlier survey but not in the later survey.”
Incorrect and you continue to thrash around rather than just accept you were wrong and have tried to find quotes to fit your case,
No Problem we all make mistakes

Understand how difficult it is to give up childhood beliefs.

RichieC

ISAW: I'm not going to bother countering your revisionist nonsense. I'll just let your post sit there and speak for itself.

tommy2bad

PDN wrote: »

Which, in the eyes of the law, is exactly where it belongs. And, since I was talking to an atheist, I wouldn't expect them to accord any more importance to religion than to fancying pigeons. Of course, if they were logical, they would spend as much time on pigeon forums arguing than they do here.



That's nonsense, because mega-churches are drawn from many different theological traditions - including RC.
OK maybe your right, I associate them with 'prosperity gospel' and AFAIC thats a heresy.


They aren't designed to be a PR tool. They are designed to hold the large numbers of people who wish to attend. Supply and demand etc.
I disagree, any building is designed to say something about it occupiers, cathedrals, banks or megachurches.

I would disagree. Most small denominations are growing. Their flexibility and adaptability make it much easier for them to respond to the challenges of doing church in western secular societies. It is the big denominations, with more monolthic policies, who are experiencing decline.

I didn't mean in that sense, more a pr campaign to normalize religion in public life.
At this point converts are just a measure of how many crazy people subscribe to that club. The rest of the population just looks on with tolerant amusement or suspicion.
Religion has lost the argument that it's anything other than an esoteric pigeon fanciers club.

(sorry missed this post in the fast pace of this thread)

Zorbas

RichieC wrote: »

ISAW: I'm not going to bother countering your revisionist nonsense. I'll just let your post sit there and speak for itself.

Have come to the same conclusion with my discussion No point if when something is proven that there is no grace around to accept a mistake and that is what I find on this board Too much school yard name calling is a problem,

philologos

By the by joseph brand was criticising my faith. I live in a British context :pac:

Hasn't this discussion become silly!

PDN

Zorbas wrote: »

Now you have changed from challenging the report which clearly states that the religious are not more generous than those of no faith. You are trying to now claim that our discussion was not in the context of Ireland,.

Come, come. Surely you can disagree with me and still remain reasonably truthful?

I never challenged the report. I challenged your failure to read the report properly - and I still do.

I also pointed out that our discussion has never been limited to the Irish Republic. After all, as I alluded to earlier, we were talking about megachurches. I am unaware of any megachurches in the Irish republic.

Have come to the same conclusion with my discussion No point if when something is proven that there is no grace around to accept a mistake and that is what I find on this board Too much school yard name calling is a problem,

Then admit your mistake instead of quoting a report and then contradicting it.