Should religion be taught in schools?

fontanalis

crucamim wrote: »

Of course. In a Catholic school Catholics should be accommodated while non-Catholics should not.

You're right; if you're stupid enough to not belive a communinon wafer doesn't turn into a man/god then you don't deserve to be accomodated.

crucamim

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The Catholic Church has been shown to be a systematic abuser of the most precious piece of private property that anyone will ever own - their own body.

You invoke and exalt property rights when these sick bastard cult leaders were violating children and building a state wide empire on de-facto slavery. Don't tell me it was a few bad Priests - bollocks it was. The whole system was rotten to the core.

Private fcuking property?

I personally consider every last blood and tear soaked molecule of Catholic Church property the proceeds of crimes against the people of this island and should be confiscated and returned to it's victims whom I consider it's rightfull owners.

This post is an excellent argument for the education of Catholic children to be controlled by practising Catholics. Why should any Catholic allow his child to be taught by a person capable of such an anti-Catholic rant? Why should any Catholic allow his child to share the same classroom or playground as the child of such an anti-Catholic bigot?

I think that anti-Catholic outbursts like that should be a criminal offense.

crucamim

fontanalis wrote: »

You're right; if you're stupid enough to not belive a communinon wafer doesn't turn into a man/god then you don't deserve to be accomodated.

Well said. Welcome to my club.

fontanalis

crucamim wrote: »

Well said. Welcome to my club.

I love the catholic club where we know what 2 + 2 really is.

fontanalis

crucamim wrote: »

This post is an excellent argument for the education of Catholic children to be controlled by practising Catholics. Why should any Catholic allow his child to be taught by a person capable of such an anti-Catholic rant? Why should any Catholic allow his child to share the same classroom or playground as the child of such an anti-Catholic bigot?

I think that anti-Catholic outbursts like that should be a criminal offense.

Why? Won't he be punished by god?

crucamim

fontanalis wrote: »

Why?

Giving offense to Catholics.

fontanalis

crucamim wrote: »

Giving offense to Catholics.

And you consider that a criminal offence?
What about offence to protestants, jews, muslims, hindus, pastafarians etc
Isn't one of the basics of christianity that anyone who doesn't believe in jesus is going to hell; doesn't get more offensive that that.
If you need your belief in the creator of the entire uinverse and us sinful men to be protected by mere mortals, I'm sorry that doesn't seem like a strong belief system.

Cú Giobach

crucamim wrote: »

This post is an excellent argument for the education of Catholic children to be controlled by practising Catholics. Why should any Catholic allow his child to be taught by a person capable of such an anti-Catholic rant? Why should any Catholic allow his child to share the same classroom or playground as the child of such an anti-Catholic bigot?

I think that anti-Catholic outbursts like that should be a criminal offense.

Lots of laws like that in The Middle East regarding Islam, lots of juicy punishments too.

RichieC

crucamim wrote: »

I think that anti-Catholic outbursts like that should be a criminal offense.

We actually do have blasphemy laws in this country, if you wish to complain you can ring the police and have an investigation opened, they may even sue Boards for our IP adresses!

The court case would get massive international attention and all, you could get famous and surely our sweet christ child would seat you to his left in heaven for bringing such awful behaviour to justice.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Again, your intentional confusion between political ideologies and religion is very convenient

It is not my confusion, it is theres. It is not me that started pretending the state could perform miracles or that the head of it was something more than human and was the ultimate moral law giver. At the end of the day the comparison between the two is clear. Religion and states such as that are built on dogma and it is dogma that most atheists abhor. Personal faith most atheists could not care less about.

The issue of course is that the only form of atheism they were teaching, regardless of what they "called" it in your opinion, was that the other religions were false and their own dogma/religion/worship was not.

As I said if that is your definition of "teaching atheism" then you "teach atheism" all the time whenever you say christianity is the correct religion and any other one is false.

philologos wrote: »

Read the conversation from that post onwards

I did, which is why I replied. I never reply to a thread that I have not read EVERY post on. I do not need a summary from you, especially when such a summary is only designed to distract from my points that you are avoiding.

philologos wrote: »

The reason why I don't reply every time with the reasons that I have for God's existence is that it takes time to write those posts and a lot of thought.

Comical therefore that after all that thought you still can not present a single valid argument for the existence of a god and the ones you did present were almost laughably easy to tear apart which is likely why you ran away from the post in which I did so.

I am simply agog to read "Mark II" of your "list".

philologos wrote: »

I don't post to get falsely accused for lying when I haven't been :pac:

I have explained at length in all the threads where you have lied why what you said were lies. I never just throw out baseless accusations. Such as the thread on which you completely warped the things I said into something I did not say and then replied to the warped version instead. I meticulously showed how you did so and rather than apologize you go off on one.

As I said on that thread AND this one, I am happy to keep doing it as long as you keep allowing me to by giving me the platform. I find utility in showing how a "true christian" likes to act and the level one chooses to conduct discourse. I could not do it better if you were in fact my sock puppet and I was writing your posts for you. On other forums I even get to link to the posts in which I get to show them how a true Christian likes to twist my words before replying to them. It is great material for which I thank you profusely.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

Not really, just by nozzferrahhtoo :pac:

But really, I'm quite happy to cut out the crap if he's willing to.

You first then. The hostility you falsely attribute to my posts is likely you interpreting the fact that I have zero time for lies AS hostility. I am not hostile. I just like to point out lies when I see them. As I keep saying, most of my discussions with you end up with me... for example.... pulling your words out of my mouth.... and I can back that up with links and quotes should someone wish to call me on it.

However if you continue to conduct discourse AT that level of honesty I am more than happy for you to do so. I repeat: there is good utility in calling you on such things, repeatedly, and allowing people to see exactly how honest this 'Christian representative' is. You are giving me a platform in the way you act, and it is one I am quite happy to utilise. It seems to be one you are quite happy to provide me too. So the relationship appears equitable.

nozzferrahhtoo

To attempt now to get the thread back on track for everyone, the Strawman here of comparing atheists here in Ireland to anything remotely like in Russia is that atheism in Russia bears no resemblance to what Atheists here espouse or want for the country when it comes to the actual subject of this thread…. Religion in schools.

Atheists are for the most part Secular. They simply want any attempts to teach dogma and lies kept out of the schools. They want critical thinking taught. They want fallacies explored and understood. Some of them want the common fallacious canards used to suggest there is a god taught and explored for why they are false.

They want fantasy kept out of school lessons and as we can see from the lack of any evidence for god(s) coming from those that espouse it’s existence… fantasy really is what we are dealing in here.

Does this mean that they want religion in all its forms, and all mentions of it, entirely removed from the lesson plan? No not at all. As I said before the thread derailed.... The history of religions, the traditions of each, what each believes, the harms each has led to, the evolution of religious stories from those that came before it, the influence of religion on our literature, our history, our geography… these are all important things to learn and to study. There are those like Daniel Dennett who even wish Religion itself to be studied as a natural phenomenon with real world causes in our species and much of this ties into biology too. Meanwhile associations like Atheist Ireland are campaigning to have MORE people not LESS people read the bible and I myself would love to see it taken out of the religion class and put into the English Literature class where it belongs… given its massive influence on things we DO already study in English class like Shakespear and Milton to name but 2.

None of this suggests we should be teaching children that there is a god… given we have no reason whatsoever to think there is… or that any religion mentioned on the course is more or less “right” than the other…. Except in the context of pointing out that we can objectively call religions like Mormonism “more” ridiculous given Mormonism is just Christianity with even more insane ideas tacked on.

philologos

nozzferrahhtoo: I said I was going to revise those reasons and I will. What's lying about that?

Here's my thoughts on the post you wrote due to your impatience. I recognise that in some ways that post was lacking that's why I'm interested in revising it. Besides it's a good deal better than any effort I've seen any atheist present on boards.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am aware of no such thing. I am aware of people retrospectively cherry picking vague lyrical text from the bible and making suggestion that they fit past events. However I am aware people also do that with Nostradamus. If you have lyrical text that is vague enough you will always fit it to events, especially if you have enough events from which to draw from.

If you want to pick say one of the "prophesy" at a time however and adumbrate your reasoning as to how it was prophesy and why you think it was fulfilled, in such a way as to show it was not merely the connection of vague text to vague events then I am happy to work through them one at a time with you.

How about I present a few examples of Biblical prophesy in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Christ.
1) The Messiah would die for the sins of mankind - Isaiah 53
2) The Messiah would be born in Bethlehem of Judea - Micah 5:2
3) The Messiah would enter into Jerusalem on a donkey - Zechariah 9:9
4) The Messiah would be crucified, the soldiers would cast his clothes into lots - the reason why Jesus said my God my God why have you foresaken me - clearly mentioning that the Messiah's hands and feet would be pierced - Psalm 22
5) The Messiah would minister in Galilee - Isaiah 9
6) The Messiah would be born of a young woman - Isaiah 7:14
7) The Messiah would be of the line of David - Ezekiel 34
8) The Messiah would be preceded by a messenger in the likeness of Elijah - Malachi 3, Isaiah 40
9) The Messiah would be betrayed for 30 pieces of silver - Zechariah 11
10) The Messiah would perform miracles and bring the Jewish faith to the Gentiles, The Messiah would create a new covenant between man and God - Isaiah 42
11) The Messiah would be buried in a rich mans tomb - Isaiah 53:7
12) God would restore the people in three days that they might live with Him for eternity (Resurrection) - Hosea 6:2
These are only a few of the prophesies I'm referring to that Jesus fulfilled 600 years after they were first written.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A challenge of course is to establish that you did not fall into one of the two big pitfalls people fall into while doing this which are:

1) The prophesy was not self fulfilling. After all if a text days "The messiah will ride into town on a donkey" then anyone who wants to pretend to be the messiah will of course make a point of riding into town on a donkey.

2) The text of part 2 was not written specifically to make it appear it fulfills part 1. There is a reason after all that people are not wowed by the fact that the prophesy made in book 1 of Lord of the Rings was later fulfilled in books 5 and 6.

1) Absolutely it could have been self-fulfilled but I doubt that someone would have been as eager as to put ones self up for the slaughter for the sake of fulfilling a prophesy.

2) This wholly depends on the Biblical text being regarded as fiction something which the other reasons I've presented would suggest isn't the case. If you are going to suggest that the Bible is fiction I'd ask you to present what basis you have for suggesting such. This argument simply can't and won't be a Q&A session. It must involve full and proper dialogue.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I can think of many ways in which it would make sense. Not just one but many. For instance the people involved could have been deluded. The people involved could have been DOING the deluding. The people involved may have dispersed but history re-written to suggest they saw things they never claimed to, such as the walking dead. It is amazing for example that the line in the bible which tells us that the graves all opened and the dead walked the earth seems to have... despite it being an incredible event.... made very little ripple in the texts of the time at all.

500 people on differing occasions witnessed the risen Jesus. Paul mentions this in 1 Corinthians. Paul seems to be actively inviting people to scrutinise the Christian faith, he even notes that they are still alive so that the people in Corinth could go to Jerusalem and find out more for themselves.

They could have been heavily deluded, but it seems unlikely that after 3 years of being with Him that you could be as fundamentally mistaken. As I've mentioned in the original post firstly when we are talking about a single person that is one thing, it is another when we are speaking of 500 on separate occasions. Secondly it is another when we are talking about people who would have knowingly risked their lives to tell people about the good news of Christ. If I were going to go out to a place where I knew full well that I would be likely killed to share the Gospel I'd like to know with a good deal of certainty that what I witnessed was indeed what I witnessed.

Indeed, if we are to trust what they had claimed Jesus was with them for 40 days after the Resurrection. That would have been ample time in order to assess the risen Jesus to see if He was truly resurrected. If it was on one occasion and on one occasion only I would understand this fully. It becomes significantly more complex if we actually see it as the Christian gospel presents it.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You ask however to explain why 11 disciples went through what they did if there was no ressurrection. I find that easy to explain. We have fanatics today who do monumentally unusual things for things the rest of us clearly see are erroneous or a lie. That people can get fanatical and delusional is hardly a surprise or something that needs to be explained.

The Resurrection isn't just "unusual". It is a hugely significant claim about reality. It isn't really possible to get around the claim that someone who was once dead is now alive in quite the same way that one could possible recreate other such miracles. It's not just about an individuals perception. Either that person is alive or He is not. If He is not then there would be no good reason to believe that that person was alive, or even that they had seen him for up to 40 days after said Resurrection. Those things are significantly more difficult to spoof.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you want a mere 11 unhinged, fanatically dedicated people explained? You are engaged in comedy here.

Not at all. I've explained how claiming that someone who was dead is now alive is profoundly different to any other form of miracle for the precise reason that it is very verifiable to determine if someone is dead or alive. As I've said above the New Testament accounts

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What has SENSE got to do with anything?

Many things do not make sense. Go to a pub next time and ask everyone there how tall they thing a news paper would be if they folded it 100 times. The highest answer I EVER got was "As high as this pub". Do the maths however and you find the actual answer is so tall that light itself would take 1000s of years to travel it's length.

The universe, compared to our ability to comprehend it, is MASSIVELY Complicated. Even the simplest things like folding a page 100 times does not make sense to us. The rigours of things like mathematics makes sense of it however.

That a simple idea makes more "sense" to your, or our, simple mind tells us nothing about whether there is a god or not. It tells us EVERYTHING about how simplistic our minds are... and how difficult it is for us to comprehend even the most established truths.

All you say when you say it makes sense, is that simple ideas make sense to YOU. This is not, I repeat NOT evidence that such a creator entity actually exists anywhere other than in your mind.

Sense is hugely important. We determine what is reasonable to us by what makes sense to us. If ultimately it seems hugely improbable that the universe could sustain life then it is more reasonable to see what is more probable unless good reason can be established in believing what seems more outlandish.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You have fallen for the "2 decks of cards" trick I am afraid. Probability has nothing to do with it because the number of worlds in our universe balances the probability of our one having come about.

Probability has everything to do with it. We determine what is reasonable from what is more likely to happen. Is it more likely that everything just happened to be as a cosmic accident or is it more likely that the universe was created and brought to be as it is through an act of creation? That's a valid question to ask as far as I see it. It would seem to be evasion and dodging to say otherwise.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Secondly the probability assumes that our world is the only kind that could support "life" at all. This is something we do not know to be true. In fact we know it NOT to be true in some ways because we have found life on our own planet in places we previously thought impossible, such as life working on a silicon basis and life working in the complete abscence of sunlight, but getting its energy from chemosynthesis instead.

Not really. It just says that on the basis of what we currently know it is incredibly improbable that you or I would even be in existence. We don't know that it was an incredibly simplex process to get to the point of abiogenesis and other forms of life unless you'd like to demonstrate to me as to how this is the case.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This is the danger of "retrospective probabilities" and of thinking "What are the chances it should have happened this way" without recognising a) the number of chances it did have TO work out that way and b) the number of other ways it could also have worked out.

It ultimately arises from a very simple question. Why is there something rather than nothing? In looking to what could be the answer to this question it seems to make sense to look to what is more probable rather than what is less probable.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Anecdote is not evidence. How, for example, is the spiritual experience of someone who thinks there is a god any different, or more credible, than that of someone who thinks they were abducted by aliens or that they are Napolean reincarnated.

How do you even verify that the anecdote is not made up, let alone applicable?

In essence as evidence for something you have no evidence for.... you are presenting other things you ALSO have no evidence for. 0 + 0 = 0 I am afraid.

I've claimed that this is a reason for my belief in God. I never said that this reason in isolation is the primary reason why would should believe in God. Rather it along with the others is what makes my faith the way it is.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Irrelevant. You were asked for evidence that god exists. Not that a man called Jesus existed. I am not sure what the evidence for Jesus existing is, but I do not doubt it is very likely. Even if a person with such a name was real, this says nothing about whether a god exists. In fact there are many people in Spain right now that exist and are called Jesus.

These are reasons as to why I believe in Christianity. Together not in isolation.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2000 years from now for example there will be Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the Bourne Identity. The reason for this is that although the Bourne Identity is fiction, the cities in it, the political occurrences within it, the politicians named there in, the companies by which Jason Bourne traveled from place to place, the products he ate and drank…. They were all real and existed.

Tripe. The more the Biblical text is verified through historicity and archaeology the more that it can be trusted to be verifiable and true. A few decades ago people said that the Bible must have been wrong because there was no town named Nazareth in the first century. Now they have found the ruins of this town. The more and more that we are finding in this region, the more backs up the Biblical text. This is in the list precisely because it is reasonable to trust in the Bible as an accurate source in respect to both history and archaeology. Fair argument I'm afraid.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Fiction is almost always set against reality, so you will ALWAYS find Archaeology, Geology and History backing up the contents. This is, again, how fiction works.

There is no good reason to believe that the Bible is fiction when the Bible is clearly not written in that genre. The Bible contains claims that can be verified, it invites scrutiny and it clearly says that it's intention is so that people would believe and enter into a living faith in Jesus. I know no fictional book that would be written in such a manner.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So showing that a number of places, events and people in the bible are real in NO WAY suggests that the entire story is real and that there fore god exists or Jesus had magical powers.

It does lend credibility to the Bible as being both historically and archaeologically accurate and that it is trustworthy as the next reason begins to describe.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So really your 7 reasons are not just lacking, but POWERFULLY lacking.

Your response is also lacking. I recognise that in some ways that my post was lacking in retrospect that's why I've said I'm going to revise my reasons.

saatana

Originally posted by RichieC

We actually do have blasphemy laws in this country, if you wish to complain you can ring the police and have an investigation opened, they may even sue Boards for our IP adresses!

The court case would get massive international attention and all, you could get famous and surely our sweet christ child would seat you to his left in heaven for bringing such awful behaviour to justice.

Well said! Actually, it is a crying disgrace that we have such a stupid thing as a blasphemy law. All religion is a delusion, and for rational people to point that out and comment on the absurdity of people believing in things for which there is and never could be any evidence whatsoever is a fundamental right. We have had quite enough of religious nutters bossing everyone around in Ireland, even having many of our finest writers censored. Now we know what a "whited sepulchre" the Catholic church was, what with all the kiddy fiddling that some of its staff practised, whilst the others covered it up.

Never again! It is time to root out that evil organisation from any position where it can influence or wield power over those who do not buy into its silly myths. By all means let those who want to believe in that guff get together and have fun at it, but why can't they just leave the rest of us to get on with our lives without god-botherers getting in our faces.

Here's a link to some very funny cartoons, BTW. Not only are they funny, but they also have a valuable lesson about the smiling face that hides sheer evil.

http://www.apocalypsecartoons.com/fathertucker/fathertucker.html

Elliemental

I voted no purely because there're sunday schools for that sort of thing. Religion is okay, so long as its' confined to the home (although I'd rather it were eradicated completely, I also realise I have to confine myself to the realms of what is possible).

Expecting the state to fund the belief in superstitions and fairy tales, (especially at a time when concerns about overall education standards, are of a growing problem), is just a bit much. Children ought to be taught to think critically, not told to believe whats' written in a two thousand year old book.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo: I said I was going to revise those reasons and I will. What's lying about that?

I never said that THAT was a lie. I said I doubt it however, given the ongoing failure to see any such reasons from you coupled with the other dishonesties like putting words in my mouth I never said which as I said is something I seem to have to do often when engaged in discourse with you. Your words out of my mouth seem to be easier for you to answer than my own.

Saying I doubt X because of set of lies Y is not the same as saying X is a lie. I hope that clarification leaves you less confused now?

philologos wrote: »

Here's my thoughts on the post you wrote....it's a good deal better than any effort I've seen any atheist present on boards.

YOUR post is better in YOUR opinion? No surprise there. Especially after your self masturbatory congratulatory post of you having atheism on the defense when you have done no such thing.

philologos wrote: »

How about I present a few examples of Biblical prophesy in the Old Testament that were fulfilled in Christ.

You can list them but that does not mean that:

1) They actually happened and that the biblical text is fact not fiction.
2) They were not self fulfilling... after all in your own words people had 600 years to orchestrate it.
3) They were not just vauge text interpreted to fit events or that the text of part 2 was not changed to fit part 1.
4) They were not so likely as to happen anyway. The messiah would be born of a young woman? Wow shocking. That NEVER happened back then did it?

philologos wrote: »

Absolutely it could have been self-fulfilled but I doubt that someone would have been as eager as to put ones self up for the slaughter for the sake of fulfilling a prophesy.

Do you now. How convenient for your canard that you would have such doubts. I however do not have such doubts at all because I know the depths of insanity and depravity people can go to, especially with the aid of religious motivation. You think it SO HARD to imagine someone willing to die for something like this? It happens all the time.

You only "doubt" it because it makes your canard look good if you do. However not only do I not doubt it, nor have you any good reason TO doubt it, but only last month we have a person nailing themselves to a cross in emulation of the event.

You can doubt it all you want, but lets not pretend that you only doubt it for any other reason other than because it suits your agenda to doubt it. Our history is in fact quite littered with people perfectly willing to give their lives for an idea or an ideal.

You willingness to doubt it therefore is a perfect example, which I will now joyfully and most likely repetitively hold up as a perfect example of just how willing people like yourself are to entirely twist reality in order to best fit it into what they have decided they want to believe.

philologos wrote: »

This wholly depends on the Biblical text being regarded as fiction something which the other reasons I've presented would suggest isn't the case.

Reasons I already dealt with. Your reasons are very poor. They are simply that you can find SOME things in the bible that really happened, places that really existed, and people who were really real.

I pointed out, and you appear to have decided to ignore this, that there is very few works of fiction on our shelves where you CANT do the exact same thing. Are we to lend them all the same credence?

philologos wrote: »

If you are going to suggest that the Bible is fiction I'd ask you to present what basis you have for suggesting such.

Ah the old onus of proof canard, and shifting the onus to those who must now prove a negative? No cigar here I am afraid. YOU are the one making the positive claim that this book is something more than fiction and in fact tells us massively incredible things about our reality. Therefore the onus of proof is on YOU to establish that this is so, not on me to prove the negative. It is your book that is making claims that go positively against reality as we know it. Claims such as I listed here and will not repeat.

Your request makes as much sense as me asking you to prove Bourne Identity is fiction solely based on the fact that all the places in the text actually exist. It is yet another canard on your part, especially given you claim to have enough Philosophy training to be fully aware of where the burden of proof lies.

philologos wrote: »

500 people on differing occasions witnessed the risen Jesus.

1) So says your book, but since you have not established the authenticity of the text you are now engaged in using ONE thing you have ZERO evidence for to evidence the OTHER thing you have ZERO evidence for. You are attempting to use the Bible... to prove the Bible. Presenting AS evidence that which you are attempting to present evidence FOR is a massive error.

2) So what? 500 is nothing. 1000s of people have witnessed the miracles of Sathya Sai Baba. If your standards of proof are to be SO lame and SO poor then really it is Sathya Sai Baba and not Jesus you should be worshiping. IF you can stop for one minute and understand how easily 1000s of people can be duped, tricked and led astray... you will realise your 500 is not only paltry but irrelevant.

3) This is before you even start to point out things like the fact you might be interpreting the text wrong. Many people talk of how they did not "recognize" Jesus but then "recognized" him later. In this context "Recognize" can be seen to be equivalent to recognizing a fellow believer and follower. Recognizing Christ IN someone rather than AS someone. However this is a side point I only mention for completeness rather than anything else and really it is irrelevant in the face of 1 and 2. Most especially 1.

philologos wrote: »

They could have been heavily deluded, but it seems unlikely that after 3 years of being with Him that you could be as fundamentally mistaken.

Once again I think you are selectively applying skepticism where it suits your agenda because once again you are doubting something could happen that we see happen ALL THE TIME. I repeat the name of Sathya Sai Baba. People have spent years with him and never doubted. Harold Camping really messed up his prediction for the end of the world and yet people STILL sent him money and ask him for guidance. Cults of pure lunacy from scientology and beyond have people close all the time and many of them never doubt. Despite his weird fear of dogs and pigs, and his unusual attraction to cats and little girls... people close to Mohammad never doubted him either. People close to Geller STILL think he can bend spoons with his mind and do not doubt hiim despite people like James Randi not only repeating the trick, but sourcing the cereal box Gellar most likely learned his trick off.

People are deluded all the time. Sometimes for days, sometimes for years, sometimes for their entire lives... often by people of great charisma. Once again however you only doubt something that we see happen ALL the time because it suits your agenda to do so. That is poor indeed. For shame.

philologos wrote: »

The Resurrection isn't just "unusual". It is a hugely significant claim about reality.

Yes, especially with all the graves opening and all the dead walking too. Yet you have zero evidence that such an event actually occurred and you are using as evidence that it occurred the book that claims it occurred which is simply as useful as going into a court room and when asked to prove a witnesses testimony... you simply ask them to repeat it again.

You would think that if such a massively significant event actually happened as the book claims you would have a massive amount of corroborating evidence. And yet it seems you are forced to continue to use the testimony to PROVE the testimony. Thankfully... and I say this with hand on heart..... our legal system does not work the same or anyone could prove anything simply by repeating what they said the first time.

philologos wrote: »

things are significantly more difficult to spoof.

Getting 11 people to claim that a missing body was spotted alive is difficult? Again with your selective application of skepticism. You would do well to look up the history of the "indian rope trick". Getting massive numbers, numbers so big as to make 11 insignificant, to claim they personally witnessed something they did not, a something that questions reality as we know it, is actually incredibly easy to do. 1000s of people claim to have seen the trick performed personally. The trick HAS never been performed.

I repeat, if you only want me to explain ELEVEN people therefore... you are just engaged in comedy.

philologos wrote: »

Sense is hugely important. We determine what is reasonable to us by what makes sense to us.

You might but many of us do not because there are many things that are perfectly true and make NO sense to us at all. Especially in the micro and macro worlds of science for example. Simply appealing to what makes sense to YOU is literally ZERO evidence to back up any claim you have been making on here.

Common sense simply is not so common, and it is more often than not just plain wrong. If you want to appeal to common sense as evidence for your imaginary friend then you are on weaker ground than either of us knew.

Probability has nothing to do with it. Due to the size of our universe and the massive number of planets, systems and more involved.... the highly improbable actually occurs all the time with some regularity. Appeals to the probability of the universe sustaining life therefore are just the appeals from one that simply does not understand the numbers.

There is therefore no question to "dodge" as you so desperately try to paint it. There simply is no question in the first place.

philologos wrote: »

It ultimately arises from a very simple question. Why is there something rather than nothing?

You have not established that to be a valid question. You simply assume nothing is the default and the something is that which needs to be explained. Why is it not just as valid to say that the fact there is something is not the default, and the idea there should be nothing is what YOU need to explain. I do not grant the assumption your canard is based upon.

That said however we in fact get something from nothing all the time in science. There is very much there to suggest that nothing is not the default you so desperately need it to be.

philologos wrote: »

Tripe. The more the Biblical text is verified through historicity and archaeology the more that it can be trusted to be verifiable and true.

Then why is it tripe because I can just as validly say "The more the Bourne texts are verified through historicity and archaeology the more that it can be trusted to be verifiable and true."

It is just as valid. We have two texts that are both likely fiction and you are trying to say that archaeological truth in one verifys that one, but archaeological truths in the other does not. Your bias and desperation is clear if you want to use one argument for yourself but jealously hold on to it when anyone else uses it in exactly the same way. THAT is tripe indeed. You can keep this idea that it is one rule for you and one rule for the rest of us and shove it.

If a method of argument is valid, it is valid for everyone. Not just you and yours.

Summary here:

So not only have you not improved on your original list, you have simply and basically just repeated it. Nothing new or different here than in the post I already replied to and you basically make all the same errors again.

The entire "force" (if we can laughingly call it that) of your list can be summed as:

1) Pretend to doubt that things that happen all the time are at all likely to happen and try to build from that a notion that this somehow makes the bible more true because the bible CLAIMS those exact events happened.

2) Pretend that there is something shocking about Part2 of a book matching the "prophesies" in part1 of the book when in fact this happens in Fiction ALL the time (Lord of the Rings, Chronicles of Thomas Covenent, Narnia, Night Watch, dune, I can name 1000s).

3) Pretend that just because something makes sense to YOU it therefore makes sense in GENERAL and is therefore likely to be TRUE.

4) Apply arguments jealously to your own text, but when the exact same arguments are applied in the exact same way to other pieces of fiction you scream that it is not valid.

5) Falsely shift the onus of proof on to others so you can cop out of verifying your own positive claims.

I really hope Mark II of your list has something valid, because Mark I and this reiteration of Mark I above simply has nothing.

Chuck Stone

crucamim wrote: »

This post is an excellent argument for the indoctrination of innocent children to be continued by practising Catholics.

Why should any Catholic allow his child to be taught about the horrible dysfunction of the Catholic Church? Why should any Catholic allow his child to share the same classroom or playground as the child of a person who sees the dysfunction and hypocrisy and points it out?

I think that anti-Catholic outbursts like that should be punishable by burning at the stake.

FYP.

youngmagee

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Atheists are for the most part Secular. They simply want any attempts to teach dogma and lies kept out of the schools. They want critical thinking taught. They want fallacies explored and understood. Some of them want the common fallacious canards used to suggest there is a god taught and explored for why they are false.

They want fantasy kept out of school lessons and as we can see from the lack of any evidence for god(s) coming from those that espouse it’s existence… fantasy really is what we are dealing in here.

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence. Its a basic scientific principal. With this said how can we say that they are wrong. I think religion should be thought as it is important to understand different types of thought. It should be thought without judgement of any religion being right or wrong and even explore the atheist view.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None of this suggests we should be teaching children that there is a god… given we have no reason whatsoever to think there is… or that any religion mentioned on the course is more or less “right” than the other…. Except in the context of pointing out that we can objectively call religions like Mormonism “more” ridiculous given Mormonism is just Christianity with even more insane ideas tacked on.

If it was to be thought like that I can understand why some people might think that their children might be discriminated or mocked based on their beliefs. To me that is just as unfair as only teaching one religion as being correct.

Mickeroo

youngmagee wrote: »

The absence of proof is not the proof of absence.

But by that logic(or lack there of) we should take it for granted that every mythical creature/deity ever dreamt up possibly existed/exists.

Freddie59

saatana wrote: »

All religion is a delusion, and for rational people to point that out and comment on the absurdity of people believing in things for which there is and never could be any evidence whatsoever is a fundamental right. We have had quite enough of religious nutters bossing everyone around in Ireland, even having many of our finest writers censored. Now we know what a "whited sepulchre" the Catholic church was, what with all the kiddy fiddling that some of its staff practised, whilst the others covered it up.[/url]

I've highlighted in bold the utter drivel that is this 'argument'. And all from one person's perspective. Yes you are right about the fiddling. No arguments there. Or about the ludicrous cover-up that still goes on.

I'm glad you say 'some of it's staff' - because that's what it was - SOME.

And what, precisely, are 'rational people'? People of the same leanings as yourself? Did many people not argue that the world was round -- and not flat? And were laughed out of town?

It's a shame to see such venom really. Those of us blessed with faith are content and blessed in that faith - whereas others, like your good self, seem to be permanently tormented. Looks like we got the better deal.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how many of those who castigate our Almighty God will allow their children to be taught in religious schools, and receive the sacraments, so they won't feel 'left out'. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

crucamim

fontanalis wrote: »

And you consider that a criminal offence?

I think that it should be.

Mickeroo

crucamim wrote: »

I think that it should be.

But then your beliefs would also be a crime against every other belief system. The fact that people were afraid to criticise the church for so long is one of the reasons all those atrocities went unpunished, what you're suggesting by making "anti catholic outbursts" a criminal offence would be putting a religious institution above the law. You are wrong. If what you are suggesting were to be the case you'd be setting modern society back by a couple of hundred years.

Tehachapi

Freddie59 wrote: »

And what, precisely, are 'rational people'? People of the same leanings as yourself?

Rational people are those who think logically about something before coming to a conclusion. Those who don't accept that which has no proof or evidence to back it up. Just like if you believed the world is ruled by an army of 36 invisible leprechaun ghosts controlling peoples thoughts and actions - I would not class you as a "rational person".

Did many people not argue that the world was round -- and not flat? And were laughed out of town?

Funny you should mention this. It was scientific evidence which debunked this belief. Something to do with ships coming over the horizon, and seeing their mast first. It was further debunked by experiment, and observation of the earth from the sky and eventually from space.

The same scientific evidence that is constantly debunking religious bullsh1t. The world was created 6000 years ago? Rofl - dendrochronology, carbon dating of fossils, observing galaxies light years away, etc proved that was bs. So christianity says "ok we got that part wrong - the rest of the bible is fact though!!".

God put man on earth? Nope, evolution makes a lot more sense. So christianity says again "ok maybe that part is wrong, or it is symbolic, so we'll accept evolution now - the rest of the bible is fact though!!".

Religion fills gaps until science can explain them. And I do believe science (abiogenesis) will eventually explain the origin of life which should hopefully make deluded religious people see their book is a load of bs.

It's a shame to see such venom really. Those of us blessed with faith are content and blessed in that faith - whereas others, like your good self, seem to be permanently tormented. Looks like we got the better deal.

It's not a shame at all, I would not class myself as "permanently tormented". I am fascinated by life and observing nature, by scientific breakthroughs and how they continue to amaze me, by the observation of quantum mechanics etc. Some of this stuff doesn't make sense yet (quantum physics in particular), but I am not going to presume "god did it" the way religious people did with the age of the earth, evolution, etc. Science will explain quantum physics some day, religion 100% will not.

In fact if "god" is omniscient - shouldn't he have dedicated a few chapters of the bible to explain the quantum world too? Or instructed his people from heaven to write them, or whatever nonsense way it's supposed to have happened. I don't really care.

Finally, it would be interesting to see how many of those who castigate our Almighty God will allow their children to be taught in religious schools, and receive the sacraments, so they won't feel 'left out'. Hypocrisy of the worst kind.

Hence this thread, if I ever have children - I can safely say with 100% certainty they will not be attending a religious school or taught any of that rubbish unless it's a class learning ABOUT all world religions (and atheism) and not taught any specific one like it's fact.

saatana

Poor Freddie59!

It beats me how religious nutters, who would happily burn people like me at the stake if they only could, can accuse atheists of "venom". Ugliness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, of course.

You are wrong in just about everything else as well. For example, I did not send my children to a faith school. Nor were they even baptised. Now they are adults, well-educated and successful, and free of superstition and a need or the kind of crutch/drug that religion is. By all means, thump your craw until it's raw. Why should I care? But allow Ireland to come out of the dark ages of its theocratic past and give every child what is actually its right: a realistic choice of a school without religious indoctrination.

x_Ellie_x

I think religion should be taken out of the schools. Everyone's got their own beliefs. I think it should be left up to the parents to teach their children about their religion, whether they have one or not.

crucamim

Mickeroo wrote: »

But then your beliefs would also be a crime against every other belief system.

A belief can never be a crime. I was referring to behaviour.

crucamim

x_Ellie_x wrote: »

I think religion should be taken out of the schools. Everyone's got their own beliefs. I think it should be left up to the parents to teach their children about their religion, whether they have one or not.

Leave it to Catholics to decide what is taught in Catholic schools. Thank you.

Mickeroo

crucamim wrote: »

A belief can never be a crime. I was referring to behaviour.

But the behaviour was speaking out against a belief?

Believing children are sexy is a crime. :pac:

crucamim wrote: »

Leave it to Catholics to decide what is taught in Catholic schools. Thank you.

Trouble is most schools in ireland are technically catholic schools when they shouldn't be.

youngmagee

Mickeroo wrote: »

But by that logic(or lack there of) we should take it for granted that every mythical creature/deity ever dreamt up possibly existed/exists.

The idea is to keep an open mind. Many for the thing that were once considered impossible have been proven to be possible. Even some species that were once believed to mythical turned out to exist (although its common for the myth to be more impressive than the reality). I know there I a point at where we have to be realistic but if you are to look at religion scientifically you can only say that you have no proof that god dose exist but we have no proof that he doesn't.

The first evolution lecture we had i was in collage are lectures told us

we need to keep an open mind, It is possible that if god exists we could of all been created seven seconds ago, we were just give the memories of a full life and that the universe was created in a way that we would never know. Everything we say that we can prove is just the best fit to the for the evidence we have.

that was three years ago so it is not a perfect quote.

Swash

No, it should be up to the parents to decide religious choices. Grand if schools want to talk about the history of religion. But anything more than that isn't what I'd want my kids learning.