Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

1…4647495152…196

Comments

  • #2402
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    long range shooter wrote: »
    It is 70% Atheist and i am one of them;)

    So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits? ;)


  • #2403
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    PDN wrote: »
    So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits? ;)

    Whats interesting in that list is that while all of them would tic the box 'no religion' and probably self describe as atheist if at a dinner party. Actual believe in nothing but the material world atheists are a small minority of any population.
    So in the end how do you prove an atheist society? Is such a thing even possible.
    Indifferent secularism seems the best description for a society that eschews religion as the source of it morals and the foundation of it's legal system.


  • #2404
    long range shooter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,493 ✭✭✭long range shooter


    PDN wrote: »
    So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits? ;)

    I am one of them who belive i am gonna end up in Valhalla when my time is up;)


  • #2405
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    PDN wrote: »
    Indeed, like the claim that Norway is 70% atheist.
    My point was an unbiased one - now we are back into the repetition game - is there any sense in such silly repitition - there you have me at it now!!


  • #2406
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    PDN wrote: »
    So are you one of those atheists that believes in no god or gods, or an agnostic atheist who doesn't know whether God exists or not, or one of the pantheist atheists, or one of the deist atheists, or a Hindu atheist who prays to Shiva, or an atheist who believes in ghosts and spirits? ;)

    There is no god looking down on us.
    There's no such thing as ghosts.
    Astrology is a load of crap.
    Psychics are frauds.
    There's no such thing as 'magic beans'.

    You'd think grown-ups would already know this.

    "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" Scott Adams


  • Advertisement
  • #2407
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    I could have sworn I seen a giant in the Burren today he jumped over Fr Ted's house and I heard he landed at the Perfumery Center :)

    Then he had Tea and carrot cake and bought some calendula cream :)


  • #2408
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    joseph brand: anything other than useless ad-hominems to bring?


  • #2409
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    I have yet to see any officially atheist countries which did anything good for society when they promoted atheism.

    So (again!) your objection is to countries that declare atheism as the official stance on religion (ie they reject secularism) and use the state to promote atheism through anti-theism (e.g anti-theistic Communists countries).

    You would, I assume, have no objection to a country made up of atheists that had a secular constitution that did not promote any religion but instead promoted secularism and freedom of/from religion in all state laws and institutions.

    So (again!) your objection is not to atheism, it is to state enforced anti-theism.

    Correct? Or are you just going to ignore this post like all the others ...:rolleyes:


  • #2410
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Whats interesting in that list is that while all of them would tic the box 'no religion' and probably self describe as atheist if at a dinner party. Actual believe in nothing but the material world atheists are a small minority of any population.
    So in the end how do you prove an atheist society? Is such a thing even possible.
    Indifferent secularism seems the best description for a society that eschews religion as the source of it morals and the foundation of it's legal system.

    Well that's just it - If pagans and spiritualists are considered Atheist for the sake of arguing that Norway is an overwhelmingly Atheist country and doesn't commit any atrocities as was inferred by somebody, not sure who many pages back...

    - Then it should follow that when they were all overwhelmingly Pagan Vikings and pretty much plundered, robbed, killed and maimed and set up slave trades other than 'Atheist' too?

    I think it's a bad example, but I don't really get what Norway has to do with a Atheist/Existence of God debates anyway :confused:


  • #2411
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    philologos wrote: »
    joseph brand: anything other than useless ad-hominems to bring?

    Ok.

    Here's a video of James Randi explaining how he knows that psychics are frauds.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0Z7KeNCi7g

    Take a look, it's both informative and entertaining. I'm going to guess, that you don't believe in John Edward's ability to talk to the dead. Or any other psychic's abilities.

    I'm not trying to go OT.
    It's just that, if you take his argument and substitute pastor/ preacher/ priest/ pope for psychic, the whole argument is the same.

    The main defence of psychics is, 'It makes people feel better'. (Although it's a money-making racket). There is no other defence. It makes them (victims) feel better by telling them what they 'want to hear', not the truth. As an example, Sylvia Browne costs $700 for a 20 min phone call. That's $2,100 /hr. Good money if you can get it.

    The main defence of religion is similar, 'It makes people feel better, gives them hope/ meaning in life'. There's plenty of religious merchandise out there for followers to purchase, from cd's and books to relics and bits of holy things. Then there's donations and collections. $$$$$$$

    Anderson Cooper takes on Sylvia Browne 'psychic' and greedy leech. Lacking any morals or ethics.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ts_To4zmEdE&feature=related


  • Advertisement
  • #2412
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    joseph brand wrote: »
    There is no god looking down on us.
    There's no such thing as ghosts.
    Astrology is a load of crap.
    Psychics are frauds.
    There's no such thing as 'magic beans'.

    You'd think grown-ups would already know this.

    "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" Scott Adams

    What did Scott Adams ever do? Was he a member of the general public or did he presume himself a non stupid alien of the planet he lives on? I think he may be a cartoonist or somebody who is famous for a cartoon of some sort or another no?

    Sounds to me like you are quoting somebody out of context and not a little with pomp think you are not part of the general population too? So what makes you particularly different? Other than being able to kiss your very own bum cheeks.


  • #2413
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    joseph brand: Bringing in psychics into this argument is irrelevant. There is a forum if you want to go and debate about that.

    What I'm interested in, and what this thread should be interested in are arguments against God's existence. I don't believe any human has any more authority to teach about God than the other. What I do when I hear my pastor preach on a Sunday is that I listen to what he says, I compare it to what is in the Bible, and if it doesn't match up with what is in the Bible I'll ask him about it afterwards. This rarely happens because my church uses expository preaching, which means they go systematically through a particular passage section by section.

    I don't argue that Christianity makes me feel better primarily. I argue that it makes sense, and that given what evidence we have in the world around us it is more likely true than false. I've been arguing that way on boards.ie for years. I think you're misunderstanding that I want you to refute Biblical Christianity rather than certain churches. I am more concerned with Jesus and defending Him than defending institutions.


  • #2414
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    philologos wrote: »
    joseph brand: Bringing in psychics into this argument is irrelevant. There is a forum if you want to go and debate about that.

    What I'm interested in, and what this thread should be interested in are arguments against God's existence. I don't believe any human has any more authority to teach about God than the other. What I do when I hear my pastor preach on a Sunday is that I listen to what he says, I compare it to what is in the Bible, and if it doesn't match up with what is in the Bible I'll ask him about it afterwards. This rarely happens because my church uses expository preaching, which means they go systematically through a particular passage section by section.

    I don't argue that Christianity makes me feel better primarily. I argue that it makes sense, and that given what evidence we have in the world around us it is more likely true than false. I've been arguing that way on boards.ie for years. I think you're misunderstanding that I want you to refute Biblical Christianity rather than certain churches. I am more concerned with Jesus and defending Him than defending institutions.

    I was quite clear on the relevance. Read my post again if you like.

    A psychic's forum? I know what type of people believe in that stuff. There was a good episode of South Park which tore John Edwards a new one. (They get you when you are down)
    BTW, you haven't stated whether you believe in it or not.

    What are your thoughts then on the pope? Has he a higher authority than say, a priest? I've heard that he is god's representative here on Earth. And since you cross-check sermons with passages in the bible, would it be easier to just read the bible than go to mass? Perhaps you prefer the social gathering? I remember mass in Ballingarry, Tipperary was more about meeting friends and locals for gossip, for a lot of the parishioners.

    Evidence suggests the unlikelihood or there being a 'creator'. Evidence tells us that the world is over 4,000 years old (billions of years old). Evidence and the beauty of maths has told us a lot about where we came from etc . . . (too long to go into here I'm sure you'll agree)

    Have you seen the 'Nazareth Village' which has been built for christian tourists? It's gonna draw crowds and make a lot of money. The problem I have is that there is no 'evidence' that it was in any way special. A 'well' was all that archaeologists could find there, and they were digging there (Nazareth) for the last century. But somehow, some dudes managed to miraculously find artefacts recently, to prove there was a settlement there and the christian-theme-park got the green light. It looks like it's just a couple of sheds and donkeys. Although, it IS sunny.


    James Randi on Nazareth Village
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU


    One last point.
    I see myself as being outside, looking in, in terms of religion. It's a good position due to the perspective. I see ALL the religions as being the same. They may have different flavours, but essentially they all work the same.
    christians, jews and muslims and hindus all act so superior towards each other. "I'm right, you're wrong!". But how can they think all the other religions are so stupid? There are 20 major religions, (link below) and I'm sure there are many more smaller religions. Each one thinks IT is correct, all others are wrong. Does this seem a bit silly to you?

    http://howmanyarethere.net/how-many-religions-are-there-in-the-world/

    If this point can't open a person's eyes, then perhaps it's safe to assume, nothing will!


  • #2415
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    lmaopml wrote: »
    What did Scott Adams ever do? Was he a member of the general public or did he presume himself a non stupid alien of the planet he lives on? I think he may be a cartoonist or somebody who is famous for a cartoon of some sort or another no?

    Sounds to me like you are quoting somebody out of context and not a little with pomp think you are not part of the general population too? So what makes you particularly different? Other than being able to kiss your very own bum cheeks.

    Have you a problem with Adams or his quote? I'm no fan of his but there's truth in the quote. I'll repeat:
    "You can never underestimate the stupidity of the general public" Scott Adams

    Now think about 1) football hooligans, 2)those who believe in psychics and 3)those who watch X factor/ jungle celebs/ dancing on ice and actually spend money on votes. We must all agree that these people are suckers and need help. They need to read more. Can you see the relevance of the quote now?

    Idiocracy is a great movie highlighting the 'dumbing down' in the media and society in general.


    If you want to talk about my ability to kiss myself and whatever else, pm me. :rolleyes:

    Also, my head hurt trying to read whatever you typed in the larger text.


  • #2416
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zombrex wrote: »
    So (again!) your objection is to countries that declare atheism as the official stance on religion (ie they reject secularism)

    well it is one of my objections yes. But i don,t object to them because they reject secularism! A christian country (or indeed a Hindu or Islamic one) might not be secular and might get along with the rest of the world just fine. i have yet to know an atheist country that did. In other words it isnt because they were NOT secular it is related to them being atheist. rejection of secularism isnt the problem Promotion of atheism is!
    and use the state to promote atheism through anti-theism (e.g anti-theistic Communists countries).

    Yes. but if they use the stqte to promote christianity nothing as bad happens -how come?
    You would, I assume, have no objection to a country made up of atheists that had a secular constitution that did not promote any religion but instead promoted secularism and freedom of/from religion in all state laws and institutions.

    I would have no objection to such atheists no. i have no idea of any such country. where is it? apparently when it suits Morbery or yourself the US is a Tweedledum atheist/secular country and when it suits you it is also a Twedledee/christian run country.
    So (again!) your objection is not to atheism, it is to state enforced anti-theism.

    No more than my objection is to the philosophy of Naziism so much as Nazis actually doing what they see as supporting such a philosophy. You cant run away from the philosophical implications or moral relativism or nihilism and say it is only about what people do.

    You wont have state enforced atheism without atheism existing in the first place.

    furthermore state enforced atheism always resulted in ruin about state enforced Christianity seldom did. how come?


  • #2417
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    ISAW wrote: »
    You wont have state enforced atheism without atheism existing in the first place.

    furthermore state enforced atheism always resulted in ruin about state enforced Christianity seldom did. how come?

    Could you expand please on this point you are making?


    If you are comparing state enforced Atheism with state enforced theism, they are both as bad as each other.


  • #2418
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    joseph brand wrote: »
    .

    I see myself as being outside, looking in, in terms of religion. It's a good position due to the perspective. I see ALL the religions as being the same. They may have different flavours, but essentially they all work the same.
    christians, jews and muslims and hindus all act so superior towards each other. "I'm right, you're wrong!". But how can they think all the other religions are so stupid? There are 20 major religions, (link below) and I'm sure there are many more smaller religions. Each one thinks IT is correct, all others are wrong. Does this seem a bit silly to you?
    !

    A good perspective I would say.
    Have spent the last couple of decades working in various countries in Africa and Asia and was able to experience the good and the bad from all sorts of beliefs and faiths. Was in Kaduna, N Nigeria once when Muslims and their neighbouring Christians turned on each other in inter-faith violence with burnings and killings. Both Christians and Muslims refused to help remove bodies from the street to the mortuary if they were of the contrary faith.
    Still heard about some kindness across faiths here in NI in helping those caught up in violence from both sides.
    Looking at some of the innane arguments on this thread about who has had the biggest kill count makes me wonder if there is much appreciation of the suffering involved behind the cold numbers.
    I do not expect any less violence from those of faith from those who of no faith even though my experience would lead me to.


  • #2419
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    well it is one of my objections yes. But i don,t object to them because they reject secularism! A christian country (or indeed a Hindu or Islamic one) might not be secular and might get along with the rest of the world just fine.

    How do you think it would get along with the non-Christians in the country? Do you support a single religion being promoted by the State and a clamp down on non-official religions within that state?
    ISAW wrote: »
    In other words it isnt because they were NOT secular it is related to them being atheist. rejection of secularism isnt the problem Promotion of atheism is!
    You agree though that an atheist country does not have to promote atheism. It simply has to be made up mostly of people who don't believe in the existence of God. The same way that a Christian country does not have to promote Christianity as the official religion of the government.

    Or perhaps you disagree with that.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Yes. but if they use the stqte to promote christianity nothing as bad happens -how come?
    Er, how are you defining "nothing as bad". The Protestant Catholic wars of Europe resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths, constant political upheaval and wide spread persecution and oppression through out Europe.

    That seems pretty bad. It seems some what academic to argue over whether it was "as bad" as other attrocities, like arguing it is as bad to kill 100,000 or 1,000,000 people.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I would have no objection to such atheists no. i have no idea of any such country. where is it?

    There has never been an atheist country as far as I know based on this definition, since there has never been enough atheists in the world to make up such a country (we can argue over whether countries like Norway or Sweden are atheist until we are blue in the face).

    The key point is that you have no objection to these atheists. So your issue is not with atheism, it is with atheists who pursue an State enforced anti-theistic stance.

    Great, I think we all object to that.
    ISAW wrote: »
    apparently when it suits Morbery or yourself the US is a Tweedledum atheist/secular country and when it suits you it is also a Twedledee/christian run country.

    I can't speak for Morbet but the USA is a Christian country, in that it is made up mostly of Christian people, with a secular government that has the principle of freedom of/from religion at its core value system.

    If we define an atheist country as a country made up mostly of people who self identify as atheist (ie not Norway) then there has never been an atheist country. So it is some what difficult to know what it would be like and what government structure would be the most common in such countries.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No more than my objection is to the philosophy of Naziism so much as Nazis actually doing what they see as supporting such a philosophy. You cant run away from the philosophical implications or moral relativism or nihilism and say it is only about what people do.

    Er, I didn't. I've no problem with you objecting to both the idea of state enforced atheism and anti-theism and the practical actions carrying that idea out.

    But as we have established you don't object to mere atheism, ie you don't object to people simply not believing a god exists.

    You would have no objection to an atheist who supported secular government and freedom of religion (which would be most of the atheists on the A&A forum for example).

    Correct?
    ISAW wrote: »
    You wont have state enforced atheism without atheism existing in the first place.

    The point seems a bit moot. You can't use violence to support any idea without the idea existing in the first place. You can't have Christian Inquisitions without Christianity existing in the first place either.
    ISAW wrote: »
    furthermore state enforced atheism always resulted in ruin about state enforced Christianity seldom did. how come?

    Again I've no idea where you got that notion from. State enforced religion lead to oppression, political instability and often civil war in any country where it was introduced. It had to, by definition enforced religion will be violent.

    By definition any government or state where an idea is violently enforced will lead to violence and oppression, since no civilisation in the history of the planet has ever universally agreed to anything. There will always be people who disagree with an enforced dogma or doctrine, and if the government is prepared to use violence to punish those who don't agree violence will ensure.

    Execution of Catholics during the Reign of Elizabeth I
    Execution-Of-Catholics-In-England-During-The-Reign-Of-Elizabeth-I-1533-1603.jpg


  • #2420
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    I never said it was atheistic. You however stuck them in with others as 3christian value" regimes

    when in 2362 i stated christianity is around for 2000 years and coulda shoulda woulda but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

    you in reply 2363 stated


    Clearly you link the above four with Christianity doing what godless atheistic regimes did or you dont -which is it?

    This has nothing to do with what I said. You have shifted your claim from "atheism causes atrocities" to "European societies adopting Christian values have only murdered thousands." I will continue to pull you up on your original claim until you retract it.
    you link the above four with Christianity doing what godless atheistic regimes did or you dont -which is it? when you want tweedledum the Us is secular . When you want to have a go at christianity the Us becomes a Christian Tweedledee which is not secular enough.

    how can you prove the level of death in the US is correlated with secularism? How many abortions in the US for example? Or dont they count?

    This has nothing to do with what I have said.
    I dont claim all the bad regimes ever were all atheistic. Only the worst murder and genocide were. Indeed some other non christian regimes were godless but didnt push atheism. others were pagan. But even christian ones did kill some people . Millions in fact. Over 2000 years that averages out at thousands per year. equivalent to say the number of road deaths in the UK per year. Nothing at all in the League of the hundreds of million killed by atheistic regimes over decades to a few centuries. And not done in the name of christianity for over 500 years. Atheistic regimes are still persecuting people. i wont get into Sharia law and whether Islam is a killer as that is not a Christianity discussion.

    And I showed that this isn't true. Nazi Germany and Leopold's Congo, for example, were not atheist regimes, and they are among the worst genocides of all time. It is also true that non atheistic regimes are still persecuting people. So the common trend across the worst genocides in history,and persecution, is not atheism.


  • #2421
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    joseph brand wrote: »
    I was quite clear on the relevance. Read my post again if you like.

    A psychic's forum? I know what type of people believe in that stuff. There was a good episode of South Park which tore John Edwards a new one. (They get you when you are down)
    BTW, you haven't stated whether you believe in it or not.

    The paranormal has no relevance to the Christianity forum. I don't engage in occult practices. It is not compatible with Christianity. So why would it be relevant to this thread?

    If you want to post about the paranormal, take it to that forum. I have no interest in it.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    What are your thoughts then on the pope? Has he a higher authority than say, a priest? I've heard that he is god's representative here on Earth. And since you cross-check sermons with passages in the bible, would it be easier to just read the bible than go to mass? Perhaps you prefer the social gathering? I remember mass in Ballingarry, Tipperary was more about meeting friends and locals for gossip, for a lot of the parishioners.

    The Pope has no more authority than any other man that walks the earth to speak about God. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but an evangelical Christian. The only criteria that counts is whether or not the teaching is Biblical.

    I don't go to mass either. I do go to church, and I go there so that I can hear God's word preached clearly, encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Evidence suggests the unlikelihood or there being a 'creator'. Evidence tells us that the world is over 4,000 years old (billions of years old). Evidence and the beauty of maths has told us a lot about where we came from etc . . . (too long to go into here I'm sure you'll agree)

    The Bible does not teach that the earth is 4,000 years old.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Have you seen the 'Nazareth Village' which has been built for christian tourists? It's gonna draw crowds and make a lot of money. The problem I have is that there is no 'evidence' that it was in any way special. A 'well' was all that archaeologists could find there, and they were digging there (Nazareth) for the last century. But somehow, some dudes managed to miraculously find artefacts recently, to prove there was a settlement there and the christian-theme-park got the green light. It looks like it's just a couple of sheds and donkeys. Although, it IS sunny.


    James Randi on Nazareth Village
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

    This is false. In 2009 ruins from first century Nazareth were found. The Guardian which is far from a Christian paper reported this.

    Article, and gallery.

    Why do you believe what people tell you? Why don't you look into it for yourself?
    joseph brand wrote: »
    One last point.
    I see myself as being outside, looking in, in terms of religion. It's a good position due to the perspective. I see ALL the religions as being the same. They may have different flavours, but essentially they all work the same.
    christians, jews and muslims and hindus all act so superior towards each other. "I'm right, you're wrong!". But how can they think all the other religions are so stupid? There are 20 major religions, (link below) and I'm sure there are many more smaller religions. Each one thinks IT is correct, all others are wrong. Does this seem a bit silly to you?

    http://howmanyarethere.net/how-many-religions-are-there-in-the-world/

    If this point can't open a person's eyes, then perhaps it's safe to assume, nothing will!

    Why is atheism any more right than any of the other worldviews?

    Simply put, the simple answer is investigation of a number of different systems of thought brought me to this conclusion. I'm happy to go into these in more depth when I get a bit more time.


  • Advertisement
  • #2422
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    philologos wrote: »
    The paranormal has no relevance to the Christianity forum. I don't engage in occult practices. It is not compatible with Christianity. So why would it be relevant to this thread?

    If you want to post about the paranormal, take it to that forum. I have no interest in it.

    I was only pointing out the similarities between both sets of 'believers'. What they get out of it. Their defence of it.
    Also, I'm wondering if the only reason that you don't believe in psychics is because it isn't compatible with your faith. If it was, then you would?

    philologos wrote: »
    The Pope has no more authority than any other man that walks the earth to speak about God. I'm not a Roman Catholic, but an evangelical Christian. The only criteria that counts is whether or not the teaching is Biblical.

    I don't go to mass either. I do go to church, and I go there so that I can hear God's word preached clearly, encourage my brothers and sisters in Christ.

    Evangelicals have those soul-less megachurches right? They look like they were built for hosting massive business conference's.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Gateway_Church_114_Campus.jpg
    philologos wrote: »
    The Bible does not teach that the earth is 4,000 years old.

    Ok then 6,000 years?

    philologos wrote: »
    This is false. In 2009 ruins from first century Nazareth were found. The Guardian which is far from a Christian paper reported this.

    Article, and gallery.

    Why do you believe what people tell you? Why don't you look into it for yourself?

    Well, here's a link, for your perusal.

    http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalfive
    philologos wrote: »
    Why is atheism any more right than any of the other worldviews?

    Simply put, the simple answer is investigation of a number of different systems of thought brought me to this conclusion. I'm happy to go into these in more depth when I get a bit more time.


    http://www.gotquestions.org/psychics-Christian.html
    The Bible gives us no reason to believe that deceased loved ones can contact us. If they were believers, they are in heaven enjoying the most wonderful place imaginable in fellowship with a loving God. If they were not believers, they are in hell, suffering the un-ending torment for rejecting God’s love and rebelling against Him.

    I think anything is 'more right' than that garbage (above quote), spewed by some christian. Threatening language. Nothing loving about it.


  • #2423
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    joseph brand wrote: »
    I was only pointing out the similarities between both sets of 'believers'. What they get out of it. Their defence of it.
    Also, I'm wondering if the only reason that you don't believe in psychics is because it isn't compatible with your faith. If it was, then you would?

    This has nothing to do with this discussion, so I'm leaving it aside and carrying on with your Christianity related objections. Discuss the paranormal in that forum.

    I don't believe in Christianity because of what I get out of it, I believe in Christianity simply because I'm convinced that it is the truth.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Evangelicals have those soul-less megachurches right? They look like they were built for hosting massive business conference's.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Gateway_Church_114_Campus.jpg

    I don't go to a megachurch, and neither do many evangelical Christians. I currently go here.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Ok then 6,000 years?

    Have you ever read the Bible? - It doesn't specify any age of the earth in its pages.

    By the by, if you haven't read the Bible and have rejected it it's like doing a book review on something you've never read. It can't be based on substance if that is the case.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Well, here's a link, for your perusal.

    http://www.nazarethmyth.info/scandalfive

    I have no reason to believe that this link is any more accurate than actual archaeology happening on the ground there. Did you even read my links? Or did you just ignore them to suit your own confirmation bias?

    Your article makes no mention of the 2009 findings which show that Nazareth was a hamlet of about 50 houses where Jews with modest means lived. No mythology here.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    http://www.gotquestions.org/psychics-Christian.html

    I think anything is 'more right' than that garbage (above quote), spewed by some christian. Threatening language. Nothing loving about it.

    Firstly, how about you ask me what I believe before chucking out links?

    Christians believe that anything which opposes the Gospel is of Satan. Anything that opposes God and His word is of Satan. The loving thing for a Christian to do is warn others so that they might come to know God before the end of time.

    Also, the Bible clearly does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. We've sinned against God and deserve His punishment. Jesus came into the world to take our sin away so that we might have a new relationship with God. If you reject Him, you will be condemned.

    God's a righteous judge. The loving thing is to tell the truth, not to tell people lies simply to keep them happy. The loving thing is to ensure that people come to know Jesus so that they might spend eternity with Him rather than in condemnation.


  • #2424
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Evangelicals have those soul-less megachurches right? They look like they were built for hosting massive business conference's.

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Gateway_Church_114_Campus.jpg

    You really are coming across as someone who will scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any argument, no matter how specious, to pick a fight with philologos.

    So now we have an atheist complaining that a building is, er, 'soul-less'? LOL!

    The fact is that some churches (albeit a small minority of the overall number of churches) have thousands of people who wish to attend each Sunday. The most effective (in terms of both money and logistics) buildings to facilitate this tend to look like conference centres - although no doubt if they built something more ornate (with more soul) you would be on here cribbing about all the money they waste on fancy buildings.

    If the best objection you can produce against philologos' version of Christianity is that some churches are popular then it's probably time to quit.


  • #2425
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    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.


  • #2426
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zorbas wrote: »
    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.

    So one atheist wants to criticise churches for being too popular and utilitarian, while another criticises them for being not popular or utilitarian enough. Honestly, you guys come across as a petty bunch of moaners.

    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.

    If Christians choose to pool their resources to build churches in which to worship then what business is that of yours? Do you indulge in similar criticism of fans who choose to contribute and pool resources to build GAA pitches and clubs? Or martial arts practioners who maintain a building for their activities? Or my local brass band who choose to spend their money on instruments and a nice rehearsal room?


  • #2427
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    long range shooter wrote: »
    It is 70% Atheist and i am one of them;)

    and you evidence that 70% of the people of norway are atheist is?
    hint: "I am one" isnt proof of the rest of the population.
    and what do you personally mean by you are one. are you using the same definition?
    do you believe in no god or gods or psychic abilities supernatural forces?
    do you believe in laws of nature or laws of physics?


  • #2428
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Could you expand please on this point you are making?


    If you are comparing state enforced Atheism with state enforced theism, they are both as bad as each other.

    According to what metric?

    what measurable outcomes can you provide which show them as just as bad?

    Number of people killed? -No
    Number killed per year? -Nope
    Buildings built? -Nope
    Buildings destroyed? -Nope
    Schools and universities supported?-Nope
    Agricultural production? -Nope

    Is there any actual cmparison you can make showing christianity as "just as bad" as atheistic regimes? Even the tiny percentage of enforced Christianity compared to the 100% enforced atheism record of atheistic countries? Can you tell me of any atheist countries that didnt have atheism enforced? And dont try the "tweedledee "secular countries" which are historically Christian and used by others here when they want to complain about the Tweedledum influence of Christianity. they cant be christian and atheist at the same time!


  • #2429
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    PDN:
    If Christians choose to pool their resources to build churches in which to worship then what business is that of yours? Do you indulge in similar criticism of fans who choose to contribute and pool resources to build GAA pitches and clubs? Or martial arts practioners who maintain a building for their activities? Or my local brass band who choose to spend their money on instruments and a nice rehearsal room?
    Drawback with this defense is that it reduces religion to a pigeon fanciers club.
    Mega churches are the worst example of christianity not because of their choice of architecture but because of their theology.
    Lets face it religion in the western world has a big PR job to do and ornate cathedrals or mega church stadiums aren't the best way to do it. Small denominations have a tough job ahead of them, the RCC has a parish structure that could be used to build a real working example of faith but I fear that they have given up on the west.
    Rejecting paranormal is sound thinking but not if its on the grounds of biblical injunction.
    The stuff is rubbish peddled by charlatans. Giving it the credence of biblical opposition is just counter productive.


  • #2430
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    tommy2bad wrote: »
    Drawback with this defense is that it reduces religion to a pigeon fanciers club.
    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.
    Mega churches are the worst example of christianity not because of their choice of architecture but because of their theology.

    That's nonsense, because mega-churches are drawn from many different theological traditions - including RC.
    Lets face it religion in the western world has a big PR job to do and ornate cathedrals or mega church stadiums aren't the best way to do it.
    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.
    Small denominations have a tough job ahead of them, the RCC has a parish structure that could be used to build a real working example of faith but I fear that they have given up on the west.
    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2431
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    PDN wrote: »

    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.

    Ignoring your usual bile, I will respond to the only comment you made of substance:

    The latest research on charitable giving which I know of does not support your assertion but I am open to correction. The following is the relevant extract for your information:

    "It was expected that households who donate to their church would also 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).
    In both 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the most likely donors were households with high income, older age, more children and higher than secondary education
    From: THE DETERMINANTS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND


  • #2432
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with what I said. You have shifted your claim from "atheism causes atrocities" to "European societies adopting Christian values have only murdered thousands." I will continue to pull you up on your original claim until you retract it.
    This has nothing to do with what I have said.

    It has everything to do with it!
    i stated in message 2362 : christianity is around for 2000 years old but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

    you replied in 2363
    *cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
    *cough* Nazis *cough*
    *cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
    *cough* USA *cough*

    you were making a direct comparison and listing the above regimes as related to Christianity!

    far from being nothing to do with what you stated the listing of Leopold of Belgium, Nazis, New World Colonisation and USA were ALL suggesting them as countries people regimes or governments who did whet they did directly as result of Christianity as a comparison to others who expressedly did what they did as a result of their policy and stated interest of spreading atheism!
    And I showed that this isn't true. Nazi Germany and Leopold's Congo, for example, were not atheist regimes, and they are among the worst genocides of all time.

    and again you miss the point! I didnt claim

    P: all regimes who killed people were atheistic

    I pointed out All atheistic regimes were genocidal.
    "I like what i get isnt" the same as "I get what I like" no matter how much you want to get what you like!

    furthermore the above regimes witht he exception possibly of the Spanish conquest of early Carribean America (which is a point which has been detailed by you earlier I believe although it might have been someone else) none of the above are christian regimes or done for christianity by christianity or in the name of christianity.

    So over 70% of the counter examples you propose are ironically not apt!

    Pointing to non atheistic and also non christian regimes which were not genocidal isnt proving anything.

    You need a population of christian and atheist run countries. You then take a random sample from each and see how many were genocidal. To my knowledge ALL atheistic ones were but a tiny percentage of christian ones were.

    HOW COME?
    It is also true that non atheistic regimes are still persecuting people. So the common trend across the worst genocides in history,and persecution, is not atheism.

    We are not discussing the common trend outside atheism and christianity!

    We are comparing the atheistic ones with t(he christian ones. although I can suggest a continuum from 100% genosidal for atheistic to almost zero for christian. In between yo might have various amounts of slaughter depending how far you move from godlessness.


  • #2433
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zorbas wrote: »
    Ignoring your usual bile,

    One can not make a comment that thezy are ignoring something by referring to it. Well one can but it is not logical.


  • #2434
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Zorbas wrote: »

    "It was expected that households who donate to their church would also 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).
    In both 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the most likely donors were households with high income, older age, more children and higher than secondary education
    From: THE DETERMINANTS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

    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.

    page 118 states the period is characterized with growth ion individualism materialism and consumerism. All of these would not be traditionally supported by the church

    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.

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

    Yes higher education is correlated with higher donation. but is this because they know more about needy causes or because they have more income that they can donate?

    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.

    So PND was not wrong

    http://arrow.dit.ie/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=busmas&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.ie%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dthe%2520determinants%2520of%2520charitable%2520donations%2520in%2520the%2520republic%2520of%2520ireland%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D2%26ved%3D0CCcQFjAB%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Farrow.dit.ie%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1019%2526context%253Dbusmas%26ei%3DcY9LT5LgGcS2hAfQpcG0Dg%26usg%3DAFQjCNGJJPA7Aw8juXrRNBfNtuJ9L-frQA#search=%22determinants%20charitable%20donations%20republic%20ireland%22


  • #2435
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zorbas wrote: »
    Ignoring your usual bile, I will respond to the only comment you made of substance:

    The latest research on charitable giving which I know of does not support your assertion but I am open to correction. The following is the relevant extract for your information:

    "It was expected that households who donate to their church would also 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).
    In both 1994/1995 and 1999/2000, the most likely donors were households with high income, older age, more children and higher than secondary education
    From: THE DETERMINANTS OF CHARITABLE DONATIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRELAND

    Disagreeing with you does not equate to bile. :rolleyes:

    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?


  • #2436
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    It has everything to do with it!
    i stated in message 2362 : christianity is around for 2000 years old but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

    you replied in 2363

    you were making a direct comparison and listing the above regimes as related to Christianity!

    far from being nothing to do with what you stated the listing of Leopold of Belgium, Nazis, New World Colonisation and USA were ALL suggesting them as countries people regimes or governments who did whet they did directly as result of Christianity as a comparison to others who expressedly did what they did as a result of their policy and stated interest of spreading atheism!

    This has nothing to do with what I said. The examples I provided were examples of great atrocities, where millions were killed, which were not in any way atheistic. They were, however, oppressive regimes with a strong disregard for human life. This is what causes atrocities.
    and again you miss the point! I didnt claim

    P: all regimes who killed people were atheistic

    I pointed out All atheistic regimes were genocidal.
    "I like what i get isnt" the same as "I get what I like" no matter how much you want to get what you like!

    And hence you have no evidence that atheism causes atrocities.

    <snip irrelevant stuff>
    You need a population of christian and atheist run countries. You then take a random sample from each and see how many were genocidal. To my knowledge ALL atheistic ones were but a tiny percentage of christian ones were.

    HOW COME?

    Because the tiny handful of atheistic regimes were always intertwined with violent revolution, totalitarianism, and militant anti-clericalism. Those are what cause atrocities. Those are the causes common to Pol Pot, Leopold, Hitler, and Mao.
    We are not discussing the common trend outside atheism and christianity!

    So we're not talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities? Have you retracted that statement?
    We are comparing the atheistic ones with t(he christian ones. although I can suggest a continuum from 100% genosidal for atheistic to almost zero for christian. In between yo might have various amounts of slaughter depending how far you move from godlessness.

    Norway is far more Godless than America, or Iran, or Saudi-Arabia, or Pakistan, or any number of other countries responsible for oppression and persecution.


  • Advertisement
  • #2437
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with what I said. The examples I provided were examples of great atrocities, where millions were killed, which were not in any way atheistic.

    No no! You made a specific issue of Leopold of Belgium before as an example of christian related atrocities
    My words:
    Christianity is around for 2000 years old but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

    Note i am referring only to christianity and atheism not anything else!

    and you brought Leopold and others up above as specific examples
    of christian related atrocities because the very point you were replying to and replying immediately after and directly to the above point about christians seldom slaughtering and atheists always doing it stated

    *cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
    *cough* Nazis *cough*
    *cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
    *cough* USA *cough*


    I specifically pointed out the Nazis and Leopold and USA were not christian and the New world is too vague and was only christian during the spanish Preponderance i.e you could attribute some of the deaths to the church or the Pope of that time.
    They were, however, oppressive regimes with a strong disregard for human life. This is what causes atrocities.

    Please pay attention!
    Given the thread is about atheism and belief

    leaving aside the non christian governments

    In the 2000 years of atheism and christianoity


    XXXchristian countries almost never committed atrocities and provided stable and prosperious regimes.

    YYYAtheist countries always committed atrocities and did it at a scale far in excess of the Christians.

    Others may have committed atrocities Im not making an issue of that.

    Can you explain why XXX and YYY behaved in different ways with respect to the people in their society?
    And hence you have no evidence that atheism causes atrocities.

    You are not in touch with logic and reason.

    Non Nazis caused atrocities as well
    Can we therefore conclude that because non Nazis caused atrocities that therefore Naziism does not cause atrocities?

    NO WE CANT!

    The historic fact is ALL atheistic regimes caused atrocities. Few christian ones did!
    Because the tiny handful of atheistic regimes were always intertwined with violent revolution, totalitarianism, and militant anti-clericalism. Those are what cause atrocities. Those are the causes common to Pol Pot, Leopold, Hitler, and Mao.

    And we have been over this before.
    Stalin had a moustache
    Stalin was a communist
    But other people with moustaches and who were communist didnt cause atrocities always!

    similarly not all revolutionaries, etc. were slaughtering people. Only the atheistic bunch were ALWAYS at it.

    Anti clericalism and atheism are hand in hand. although Ian Paisly is anti pope and anbti clerical but Im not aware of him proposing catholics be slaughtered even if some of his church did.

    All of the excuses you use have exception but ATHEISTIC doesnt! why is that do you think?

    [quoter]
    So we're not talking about whether or not atheism causes atrocities? Have you retracted that statement?
    [/quote]

    1. No we are talking about you claiming Christian regimes which are not christian slaughtering people as opposed to atheistic ones who always slaughtered people.

    2. As i stated i cant formally prove atheistic regimes will always do so in the future -just that they always did in the past.

    Even totalism which IS a twentiets century phenomon according to some
    Totalitarianism
    By Gilbert Pleuger
    new perspective Vol 9, No 1
    Uniquely a twentieth-century phenomenon, students will encounter the concept of totalitarianism in many courses on the period
    http://www.history-ontheweb.co.uk/concepts/totalitarianism.htm
    But atheism is not unique to the twentieth century! i have given examples of the 19th and the french Terror and Middle age and ancient china.
    Norway is far more Godless than America, or Iran, or Saudi-Arabia, or Pakistan, or any number of other countries responsible for oppression and persecution.

    But not 70% atheist as you claimed?
    And Norway has the Lutheran church legally linked to the State does it not?


  • #2438
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    ISAW wrote: »
    I have no intention of doubting the source. If alan Matthews examined it and approved oit it has attained a level of credibility.

    page 118 states the period is characterized with growth ion individualism materialism and consumerism. All of these would not be traditionally supported by the church

    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.


    [/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. [/Quote]

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

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

    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.

    [/Quote]
    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.[/Quote]

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

    [/Quote] So PND was not wrong [/Quote]

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


  • #2439
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    PDN wrote: »
    Honestly, you guys come across as a petty bunch of moaners.

    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.

    If Christians choose to pool their resources to build churches in which to worship then what business is that of yours?

    The above are examples of how you can not engage normally in debate without trying to undermine.
    Dismissing people who put forward contrary views to your own do not need to be told they are a petty bunch of moaners. No need to resource to name calling - its for the school yard.
    You have no idea if I do or do not give generously to or help the homeless.
    I never claimed that people should not build churches. I do object to people wasting money on keeping large under-used building going.

    The only reason why I bother to comment on the silly comments above are because of your suggestion that they were perfectly normal in debate - not in my book.


  • #2440
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    PDN wrote: »
    You really are coming across as someone who will scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any argument, no matter how specious, to pick a fight with philologos.

    So now we have an atheist complaining that a building is, er, 'soul-less'? LOL!

    How then, would you compare any of the architectural Gothic Cathedrals to one of these Megachurches, which do look like inflated boardrooms or conference halls? Some look like they could host the WWF! They cost a lot of $$$ to build and they bring in a lot of $$$$. All about the money.
    PDN wrote: »
    The fact is that some churches (albeit a small minority of the overall number of churches) have thousands of people who wish to attend each Sunday. The most effective (in terms of both money and logistics) buildings to facilitate this tend to look like conference centres - although no doubt if they built something more ornate (with more soul) you would be on here cribbing about all the money they waste on fancy buildings.

    I would have to agree with you. I'm not happy with either, to be honest. Less bible study, more open-minded education. What's so horrible about that?

    PDN wrote: »
    If the best objection you can produce against philologos' version of Christianity is that some churches are popular then it's probably time to quit.

    All the more reason to NOT quit. Perhaps you believe that popular means good/ right? I could go down the Godwin path, but I won't. So I'll use X factor, or those mind numbing soaps on TV daily. THEY are popular. People should be encouraged to avoid this type of TV, but then, even though you could be acting in their best interests, you would be seen as a fiend.

    Or to put it another way, Islam is popular in Saudi Arabia. Or, psychic Sally Morgan draws big crowds. (she should be in jail)


  • #2441
    Zorbas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 194 ✭✭Zorbas


    PDN wrote: »
    Disagreeing with you does not equate to bile. :rolleyes:

    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?

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #2442
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Zorbas wrote: »


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

    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.

    So I was not wrong - you were simply misinterpreting the data in your eagerness to try to prove me wrong.

    I would also point your attention to a survey in the US in 2000. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

    (Their definition of 'religious' is those who attend a place of worship weekly, or 33% of the US population. Their definition of 'secular' is those who attend worship rarely or never).

    It demonstrated that: "Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions."

    "religious people are 33 percent of the population but make 52 percent of donations and 45 percent of times volunteered. Secular people are 26 percent of the population but contribute 13 percent of the dollars and 17 percent of the times volunteered."

    "Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones. While 68 percent of the total population gives (and 51 percent volunteers) to nonreligious causes each year, religious people are 10 points more likely to give to these causes than secularists (71 percent to 61 percent) and 21 points more likely to volunteer (60 percent to 39 percent). For example, religious people are 7 points more likely than secularists to volunteer for neighborhood and civic groups, 20 points more likely to volunteer to help the poor or elderly, and 26 points more likely to volunteer for school or youth programs. It seems fair to say that religion engenders charity in general — including nonreligious charity."

    More details here: http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577


  • #2443
    joseph brand
    Registered Users Posts: 4,537 ✭✭✭joseph brand


    philologos wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with this discussion, so I'm leaving it aside and carrying on with your Christianity related objections. Discuss the paranormal in that forum.

    I don't believe in Christianity because of what I get out of it, I believe in Christianity simply because I'm convinced that it is the truth.

    Have you ever read the Bible? - It doesn't specify any age of the earth in its pages.

    By the by, if you haven't read the Bible and have rejected it it's like doing a book review on something you've never read. It can't be based on substance if that is the case.


    Firstly, how about you ask me what I believe before chucking out links?

    Christians believe that anything which opposes the Gospel is of Satan. Anything that opposes God and His word is of Satan. The loving thing for a Christian to do is warn others so that they might come to know God before the end of time.

    Also, the Bible clearly does say that Jesus is the only way to salvation. We've sinned against God and deserve His punishment. Jesus came into the world to take our sin away so that we might have a new relationship with God. If you reject Him, you will be condemned.

    God's a righteous judge. The loving thing is to tell the truth, not to tell people lies simply to keep them happy. The loving thing is to ensure that people come to know Jesus so that they might spend eternity with Him rather than in condemnation.

    Firstly, I haven't read the bible. Neither have I read any of Katie Price's autobiographies. I don't think my brain would allow me, nor my eyebrows, which would be raised for some time.

    Secondly, your argument is almost always going to come from inside the bible. It's not a good source, see here:

    http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg

    Never question the bible. In fact, why question anything? Just stagnate.

    Well, some of us want to move forward, progress. Losing the shackles of religion is liberating.


  • #2444
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    No no! You made a specific issue of Leopold of Belgium before as an example of christian related atrocities
    My words:
    Christianity is around for 2000 years old but DIDNT do as you expect them to have done over the last 2000 years to any degree even approaching the godless atheistic regimes.

    Note i am referring only to christianity and atheism not anything else!

    and you brought Leopold and others up above as specific examples
    of christian related atrocities because the very point you were replying to and replying immediately after and directly to the above point about christians seldom slaughtering and atheists always doing it stated

    *cough* Leopold of Belgium *cough*
    *cough* Nazis *cough*
    *cough* New World Colonisation *cough*
    *cough* USA *cough*

    I specifically pointed out the Nazis and Leopold and USA were not christian and the New world is too vague and was only christian during the spanish Preponderance i.e you could attribute some of the deaths to the church or the Pope of that time.

    This has nothing to do with what I said. I have corrected you on this before. Christians have killed millions. If I were you, I would say something ridiculous and paper thin like "They killed people because they were Christian". Instead, I say the common trend across all atrocities is a complete and total disregard for human life, coupled with extremist government policies and socio-economic experimentation/ethnic cleansing. Please pay attention, given this thread is about atheism and belief.
    Please pay attention!
    Given the thread is about atheism and belief

    leaving aside the non christian governments

    In the 2000 years of atheism and christianoity

    XXXchristian countries almost never committed atrocities and provided stable and prosperious regimes.

    YYYAtheist countries always committed atrocities and did it at a scale far in excess of the Christians.

    Do you think, if you ignore your earlier claim, I won't notice? You said atheism causes atrocities. Now you are saying non-Christianity causes atrocities?
    Others may have committed atrocities Im not making an issue of that.

    Yes you are, unless you have retracted your statement about atheism.
    Can you explain why XXX and YYY behaved in different ways with respect to the people in their society?

    You are not in touch with logic and reason.

    Non Nazis caused atrocities as well
    Can we therefore conclude that because non Nazis caused atrocities that therefore Naziism does not cause atrocities?

    NO WE CANT!

    This has nothing to do with what I said. What you think I said: "Theists caused atrocities, therefore atheism does not cause atrocities." What I actually said: The common trend across all atrocities is a total suppression of human rights coupled with willingness to eradicate a culture, class, race, or religion for socio-economic gains. This characteristic manifests in many ways. In Nazi Germany, it was the dolchstoss mentality in the wake of a destructive world war. In Pol Pot's Cambodia, it was the overthrow of the left-wing Pracheachon party, coupled with the fanatical enforcement of agrarian socialism and anti-clericalism. In Belgium, is was personal megalomania and ruthlessness. I also say it is not true that atheists committed the worst atrocities.
    And we have been over this before.
    Stalin had a moustache
    Stalin was a communist
    But other people with moustaches and who were communist didnt cause atrocities always!

    similarly not all revolutionaries, etc. were slaughtering people. Only the atheistic bunch were ALWAYS at it.

    This has nothing to do with what I said. Oppression, ruthlessness, socio-economic experimentation, and hatred for the Other are what tie all atrocities together. They are the ones who were always slaughtering people, not moustaches, communists, or atheists.
    Anti clericalism and atheism are hand in hand. although Ian Paisly is anti pope and anbti clerical but Im not aware of him proposing catholics be slaughtered even if some of his church did.

    They do not go hand in hand. Secular pluralist atheists have no issue with churches, provided they do not try to run the country.
    All of the excuses you use have exception but ATHEISTIC doesnt! why is that do you think?

    No they don't. What are the exceptions? What violent ruthless totalitarian megalomaniacs didn't kill people?
    1. No we are talking about you claiming Christian regimes which are not christian slaughtering people as opposed to atheistic ones who always slaughtered people.

    2. As i stated i cant formally prove atheistic regimes will always do so in the future -just that they always did in the past.

    Yet any time I show you the absurdity of your inference, you claim "we are not talking about that"
    Even totalism which IS a twentiets century phenomon according to some

    But atheism is not unique to the twentieth century! i have given examples of the 19th and the french Terror and Middle age and ancient china.

    This is strange. You declare Norway as not having an atheist majority because atheists cannot believe in spirits or impersonal life-forces, yet Mongolian Tengrism is atheistic?
    But not 70% atheist as you claimed?
    And Norway has the Lutheran church legally linked to the State does it not?

    You're doing it again. You're hopping from subject to subject in order to avoid any sort of progression. I will happily defend the claim that Norway is largely an atheist country, with an atheist leader. But I don't have to even do that in order to refute your claim of a spectrum of immorality and godlessness. You said "I can suggest a continuum from 100% genosidal for atheistic to almost zero for christian. In between yo might have various amounts of slaughter depending how far you move from godlessness.". That is a naff claim, easily dismissed by comparing Norway to any variety of theist states.


  • #2445
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    joseph brand wrote: »
    How then, would you compare any of the architectural Gothic Cathedrals to one of these Megachurches, which do look like inflated boardrooms or conference halls? Some look like they could host the WWF! They cost a lot of $$$ to build and they bring in a lot of $$$$. All about the money.

    How would I compare them? They are both buildings built to house people so they can worship God. Ascetics vary, but in the end the building is just bricks and mortar.

    I know a number of mega-church pastors and money tends to rate pretty low in their list of priorities. Most of them do what they do because they genuinely want to share the Gospel with as many people as possible. I fail to see that they deserve criticism simply for being successful at what they do.
    I would have to agree with you. I'm not happy with either, to be honest. Less bible study, more open-minded education. What's so horrible about that?
    It's not horrible at all. If you get bugged by the spread of Christianity then that is your own loss. But soapboxing your prejudices here is not what this Forum is for. I advise you to read the Charter.
    All the more reason to NOT quit. Perhaps you believe that popular means good/ right?
    No, wrong. That would be a dumb assumption for you to make about me. What I stated was that the popularity of a brand of Christianity is not a valid objection to it.


  • #2446
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Firstly, I haven't read the bible. Neither have I read any of Katie Price's autobiographies. I don't think my brain would allow me, nor my eyebrows, which would be raised for some time.

    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.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Secondly, your argument is almost always going to come from inside the bible. It's not a good source, see here:

    http://blogforthelordjesuscurrentevents.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/break-the-cycle.jpg

    Never question the bible. In fact, why question anything? Just stagnate.

    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.
    joseph brand wrote: »
    Well, some of us want to move forward, progress. Losing the shackles of religion is liberating.

    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.


  • #2447
    tommy2bad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,255 ✭✭✭tommy2bad


    Originally Posted by joseph brand
    Less bible study, more open-minded education.
    Hello neighbor ;)
    Are they mutually exclusive?
    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.


  • #2448
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »

    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.

    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.


  • #2449
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    RichieC: I've looked into quite a number of different systems of thought, and I'm quite happy to do it on any occasion should the opportunity arise. In fact generally when I see missionaries out on the street when I'm passing, I generally ask them why they are there, and what they believe, and chat it out with them. I get a lot of opportunities to do that here, and I'm thankful for it. They share a little about what they believe, I share a little about what I believe. I believe such interactions make society richer.

    I've looked into Islam, Mormonism, and Hinduism to a certain degree. However, unlike joseph brand, I don't publically criticise Mormonism or Islam on fora. joseph brand criticises Christianity while being ignorant of it.


  • #2450
    RichieC
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,333 ✭✭✭RichieC


    philologos wrote: »
    I've looked into Islam, Mormonism, and Hinduism to a certain degree. However, unlike joseph brand, I don't publically criticise Mormonism or Islam on fora. joseph brand criticises Christianity while being ignorant of it.

    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.


  • #2451
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    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.

    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.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement